1920-04-21

RETURN TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
'Copy of the Agreement of September 10, 1919, between the Allied and Associated Powers with regard to the contributions to the cost of liberation of the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and copy of Declaration dated the 8th December, 1919, modifying this Agreement; also copy of Agreement of September 10, 1919, between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy with regard to the Italian reparation payments and copy of Declaration of December 8, 1919, modifying this Agreement-Hon. Mr. Rowell.


Hon. HLTGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Defence):: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Hon. Mr. Crothers:
_ That a special committee be appointed to consider and report upon the question of what memorials, if any, should he erected on the battlefields of the late war to commemorate the gallantry of the Canadian troops and all matters arising out of or connected with the same, and that Messrs. Mewburn, Clark (Red Deer), Le-mieux, Bfiland, McCurdy, Peck, Mowat, Power

and Blake be the members of such committee, with power to sit during the sessions of the House.
He said: As the House is no doubt aware, during the past year, eight sites have been selected in France and Flanders for the purpose of erecting memorials to commemorate the victories of Canadian soldiers during the Great War. These sites which have be.en selected are in respect of the battles which are now known, and which will be known to history, under the following names:
1.	St. Julien, a battle which was fought during the month of April, 1915, and also known as the second battle of Ypres.
2.	The battle of Passehendaele, -a battle which extended from the 22nd October to the 17th November, 1917.
3.	The battle of Observatory Ridge, sometime known as the battle of St. Eloi, which extended from May until June in the year 1916.
4.	The battle of Viiny Ridge which took place on the 9th April, 1917, and continued till May 3 following.
5.	The battle of Arras which took place during the months of August and September. 1918.
6.	The battle of Bourlon Wood which took place on September 27, 1918.
7.	The battle of Courcelette, which was part of the great battle of the Somme, fought during the months of September and October, 1916.
8.	The battle of Amiens which took place during the months of August and September, 1918.
These eight sites have been acquired partly by purchase and partly by contributions from the Governments of France and Belgium. One site in particular has been contributed iby a private gentleman in France, Count de Francqville. As the House is aware $500,000 was placed in the Estimates last year for the purpose of erecting memorials. I think the only part of this money expended has been a payment of about $1,500 which was the net cost to Canada of acquiring these sites. All of these sites have now been conveyed to the Government of Canada. As the House is aware, in the Estimates of this year the only sum mentioned for this purpose is $10,000. That is to carry on the necessary work of survey, road construction, and the like. The Government deems it proper to ask the House to take the ^whole question into consideration, and for this purpose that a special committee of nine members be now appointed who will go fully into the facts and determine upon some general policy for the

erection of permanent memorials. It is for the appointment of such a committee that the motion is now made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Herbert Walter Ecclestone.-Mr. Pedlow.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are answered by asterisks.)
MILITARY SERVICE ACT-COLLECTIONS BY Mr. CIMON.
['1.\tFor a return showing amounts collected by the Government through War Stamps Tax since it has (been in force, with details of collection for each year.\n2.\tExpenses incurred in the collection of same, viz.: (a) fees to lawyers employed by the department, the amounts paid to each of them and the date of payment; (b) expenses andi salaries paid to all other persons in relation thereto, specifying the date of payment of same.\n3.\tThe number of sentences of fines, specifying: (a) judiciary districts where fines were imposed1; (b) amounts of said, fines; (c) the names of the lawyers representing the Government in those cases; (d) the date of said sentences.\n4.\tThe number of cases or proceedings settled by the lawyers employed by the Government before the issuing of writ of actions against defaulters, specifying: (a) the remittances made by the Government in relation thereto; (b) the date of the remittances; (c) the names of the lawyers acting in those cases.']
Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: The facts appear to be that Mr. Cimon, without authority or instructions from the Government, demanded and received from the defaulters referred to certain sums of money adjudged to be paid by the convicting magistrate as costs to which in the opinion of the Department of Justice he was not legally entitled. Any right of action to compel reimbursement of those sums would belong to the parties from whom they were obtained and not to the Government of Canada. The Minister did not state and is not aware of the amounts in question. The minister caused Mr. Cimon to be informed that it was in the minister's opinion, his duty to refund these amounts to the persons from whom he received them. The case seems to be one calling for the attention of the Bar to which Mr. Cimon belongs.



[Stage Direction]
*Mr. SAVAlRD:
1.	Are the young men who enlisted to go to Bermuda considered as returned soldiers?
2.	Is the Civil Service Commission hound to give preference to these young men when an appointment is to he made?
Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	A soldier who served with the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Bermuda is considered a "returned soldier." He holds the same position in that respect as a soldier who only saw service in England; and is entitled to a Class "C" Badge.
2.	Where two candidates are considered to be at all points on a parity, if one is a
civilian and the other has voluntarily enlisted and been drafted to Bermuda, the latter would be giifen the preference.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-RENTALS.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	What amount has been paid by the National Transcontinental Railway, in 1919, for the rent of rolling stock, from the Intercolonial railway and other roads?
2.	What amount has been paid by the National Transcontinental Railway, in 1919, to the Intercolonial Railway for repairs to rolling stock?
3.	What amount has been paid by the National Transcontinental Railway, in 1919, to the Canadian Pacific Railway for use of their terminal at Quebec?
4.	What amount has been paid by the National Transcontinental Railway, in 1919, to the Quebec Harbour Commission for use of Quebec docks and elevator?
5.	What amount has been paid by the National Transcontinental Railway, in 1919, to the Grand Trunk Railway for use of Fort William branch?
6.	What amount has been paid by the National Transcontinental Railway, in 1919, to the Ontario Government Railway for use of its line from Cochrane to North Bay?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The National Transcontinental railway is operated as part of the Canadian Government Railway system, said railway bearing its proportion of the cost of repairs, etc., to equipment.
2.	Cost of maintenance and equipment charged to National Transcontinental for year 1919 was, $2,822,010.17.
3.	Amount of Canadian Pacific charges for use of Quebec terminal for the year 1919 was, $131,015.97.
4.	The amount paid to the Quebec Harbour Commission for the use of Quebec docks and elevator for the year 1919 was, $10,345.60.
5.	The yearly rental of the Lake Superior branch is $600,000, and said amount has been applied against the amount due the Canadian Government Railways by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
6.	Traffic, both passenger and freight, is interchanged between the National Transcontinental and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway; the earnings derived therefrom Ibeing apportioned (on mileage basis, as usually employed between railways in proportion to the freight and passenger tolls.


NATURAL RESOURCES OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Is it the policy or intention of the Government to transfer to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba their natural resources?
.1462

2.	If so, how long has this been the policy of the Government?
3.	Is Parliamentary action necessary to effect such transfer?
4.	If so, will such action be taken (luring this session?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes, as soon as terms fair and equitable with reference to all other provinces of the Dominion can be arranged.
2.	Since the Government was formed.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered toy No. 1.


MR. O. M. BIGGAR, K.C.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has one O. M. Biggar, K.C., accepted a general retainer as counsel for the Canadian Government?
2.	If so when, and what is the amount of this retainer?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 and 2. The gentleman named has accepted an annual retainer of $10,000 to act as counsel for the Government, this amount to cover all fees and costs. This will take effect from April 1, 1920, subject to the necessary Parliamentary appropriation being made.


MARKET PRICE OF GOVERNMENT BONDS.
[Stage Direction]
, Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):
1.	Has the Government, by Order in Council, or in any other way, fixed the market price of Government bonds?
2.	If so, what is the price?
3.	What was the purpose?
4.	Has the Government placed an embargo on the purchase by Canadians of Canadian securities held in Europe?
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	By an agreement made between the Victory Loan Special Committee and Bond and Stock Dealers, transactions in Victory Loan Bonds are carried out through this committee and at prices fixed from time to time having regard to demand and supply and existing financial conditions.
2. Present prices:		
Maturity.	Sellers.	Buyers1922-54 per cent ..	.. .. 99	1001927-54 per cent ..	.. .. 994	10041937-54 per cent ..	.. ..102	1031923-54 per cent ..	.. .. 98|	99f1933-5J per cent ..	.. .. 1004	10141924-54 per cent ..	.. .. 96	991934-54 per cent ..	.. .. 96	97
3. The main purpose of the control exercised toy the committee is to insure a sound and steady distribution of bonds offered from time to time with a view to prevent-
ing violent fluctuations and securing for investors who are forced to sell the best possible prices.
4. After consultation with the Minister of Finance, Canadian Chartered Banks, Stock and Bond Dealers and other financial institutions deemed it advisable on account of the adverse rate of sterling and New York exchange to unite in discouraging at this time the export of capital from Canada for the purchase of securities abroad.


CANADIAN SOLDIER PRISONERS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	How many Canadian soldiers are detained in English or French prisons undergoing sentences imposed by military or civil authority?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to return these men to Canada before the expiration of their sentences in order that they may be either reprieved or that the sentences be carried out in this country?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	On the 31st March, 1920, no serving soldiers of the Canadian Forces were detained in English or French prisons.
On the date mentioned, there were 24 men, formerly members of the Canadian Military Forces, detained in British prisons as the result of offences of a serious character against the civil law. Of these, 14 were dealt with by civilian tribunals and 10 by military tribunals.
All these men have, subsequent to their conviction, been discharged from the military forces.
There are no Canadians in French prisons as the result of sentences imposed on. them whilst members of the Canadian Military Forces.
2.	It is not the intention of the Government to take any steps to have these men returned to Canada prior to the expiration of the remainder of the term of their sentences, exclusive of such portion thereof as has been, or may be, remitted.


MR. CIMON, ADVOCATE, AND MILITARY DEFAULTERS.
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Was Mr. Clmon, advocate, of Riviere du Loup, employed by the Department of Justice or by . the Militia Department for the purpose of prosecuting defaulters during the month of March, 19119, or at any time during the year 1919?
2-. If so, what were the terms and conditions of such employment ?
3.	If not, is it true that the said Mr. Cimon charged a fee of ten to twenty dollars to each defaulter for whom he appeared?
4.	Is it a fact that a report was made to the Department of Justice or to any department in Ottawa by one Sergeant James Horman of

the Special Service Branch for the M.S.A. duties during the year 1919, and that as a result of this report the said Mr. Cimon was instructed to refund the amounts to the defaulters?
5.	Was the said Mr. Cimon ever instructed to accept notes for the amount of 'the fines imposed upon the defaulters?
6.	Has it come to the knowledge of the department that the said Mr. Cimon did accept notes from the said defaulters to an amount aggregating from three to five thousand dollars?
7.	Have these notes been paid?
8.	Has the Government any intention of investigating irregularities in this matter?
9.	Is it a fact that the Acting Chief Commissioner Cawdron was aware that the notes were being taken from defaulters?
10.	Is it a fact that the Chief Inspector, Mr. Holden, was aWare that notes were being taken from defaulters?
11.	Has it come to the knowledge of the department that the said Chief Inspector, Mr. Holden, advised James Horman not to mention this matter to the deputy minister?
12.	Is it the intention of the Government to Investigate these irregularities?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The department is not aware what charge Mr. Cimon made to any defaulters for whom he appeared.
4.	After a report had been received from Horman, Mr. Cimon was informed that it was his duty to return certain amounts collected by him from defaulters as costs of prosecution.,
5.	No.
6.	So far as it has been possible to ascertain Mr. Cimon received notes for an amount of upwards of $2,700 at least.
7.	So far as ascertained to the extent of $2,372.71 they have not been paid.
8.	Enquiries have been made and are being pursued.
9.	No.
10.	No.
11.	No.
12.	Answered by No. 8.
DEiATH OF MR. ALVES.


Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Has a claim been made for compensation for the death of Mr. Alves, who was killed at Parry Sound fall fair by the explosion of a trench mortar bomb, supposed to be harmless?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to make provision for the family of the said Mr. Alves?
3.	Does the Government intend to protect themselves by any document or clearance signed by the exhibition or fair authorities who thereby accepted the responsibility?
4.	Have the Government any guarantee .that all active munitions returned from overseas were properly examined and guaranteed to be harmless before being used for exhibition purposes?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under consideration of the Government.
3.	Answered by question No. 2.
4.	Yes.


INDEMNITY PROM GERMANY.
Mr. HAY:: 1.	Is the Government of Canada doing anything toward securing any indemnity from Germany for loss through the war?
2.	Has any definite claim been made?
3.	Is it true that Australia and other British Colonies have all received additional territory by way of indemnity?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	The Treaty of Peace limits and defines the classes of claims which may be presented by the Allied and Associated Powers against 'Germany (see Articles 232, 233, 235 and Annex .1, of section I, part 8), and in so far as Canada has exepended money or incurred obligations covered by this Treaty, Canada has a claim, and the Government of Canada is taking the necessary steps to see that that claim is properly presented.
2.	The amount of Canada's claim is now being computed for presentation to the Tribunal created under the Treaty of Peace.
3.	No. Australia, New Zealand, and -South Africa, will be named as mandatories under the League of Nations with respect to certain territories which Germany has been required to surrender.


IMMIGRANTS PROM UNITED STATES.
Mr. ROBB:: How many immigrants from the United States entered Canada during the month of December in each of the following years, viz.: 1916, 1917, 1918?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: December,	1916	3,170"	1-917	3,233"	1918..	'	2,226.


SERVICE BETWEEN BERSIMIS AND RIMOUSKI.
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	What has been the cost of the service by boat between Hamilton Cove, Bersimis and Ri-mouski in 1919?
2.	Has any complaint been made against said service? If so, what is it?
3.	What will be the cos-t of the same service for 1920?
4.	To whom has the contract been.granted?
IHon. Mr. ROWELL:
1. As there is no mail service by boat between Hamilton Cove, Bersimis and Rim-

ouski, it is presumed the service regarding which information is sought is that between Bersimis and Bimouski. The cost of this service in 1919 was $1,925.
2. No.
3 and 4. Contract arrangements have not yet been completed and it is not considered in the public interest to furnish this information until the new contract has been fully executed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: .1. What is the minimum and maximum salary being paid to postmasters?
2.	By what method is the minimum and maximum salary of postmasters determined?
3.	Do postmasters receive a bonus on account of the high cost of living?
4.	If not, why?
5.	What is the minimum and maximum salary heing paid to rural mail carriers?
6.	Has the Government fixed a maximum rate per mile to apply to rural mail routes?
7.	How is the salary of rural mail carriers determined?
8.	Do rural1 mail carriers receive a bonus on account of the high cost of living?
9.	If not, why?
10.	What is the minimum and (maximum salary heing paid to letter carriers?
111.	Do letter carriers receive a bonus?
12. If so, how much?


UNOPPOSED MOTION.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	For a return showing amounts collected by the Government through War Stamps Tax since it has (been in force, with details of collection for each year.
2.	Expenses incurred in the collection of same, viz.: (a) fees to lawyers employed by the department, the amounts paid to each of them and the date of payment; (b) expenses andi salaries paid to all other persons in relation thereto, specifying the date of payment of same.
3.	The number of sentences of fines, specifying: (a) judiciary districts where fines were imposed1; (b) amounts of said, fines; (c) the names of the lawyers representing the Government in those cases; (d) the date of said sentences.
4.	The number of cases or proceedings settled by the lawyers employed by the Government before the issuing of writ of actions against defaulters, specifying: (a) the remittances made by the Government in relation thereto; (b) the date of the remittances; (c) the names of the lawyers acting in those cases.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday next Government Notices of Motion and Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays, until the end of

the session, over all other business except Questions and Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.


Mr. FIELDING:: The desire of the Government to advance business at this stage of the session may be right and proper, but I would like to point out that a material part of the Government's policy-to wit, the Budget-has not yet been brought down. I think it is a little unusual, in advance of the Budget, for the Government to take possession of days which are at the disposal of private members, and therefore I would ask my right hon. friend to give consideration to that fact before he presses this motion.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It is true, as my hon. friend says, that the Budget, which is usually and rightfully considered to be a very important part of the business of the session, is not yet down. But it is also true that there is abundance of Government business, in the shape of legislation and main Estimates, already before the House. Some Bills of importance have been advanced quite a considerable way towards completion, but yet have some progress, more or less difficult to make before they come to a conclusion. In other words there is before the House at present a sufficiency of Government business to employ its full time. It is for the House to consider, in a way, how long it wishes to remain in session. I have taken it as the general expression of opinion, that members on both sides are not anxious to stay here to transact business any longer than is necessary, and that therefore they would be in the mind to get along as quickly as possible with the Government programme. Since the beginning of the session we have had the usual private members' days, and one of them still remains open. It is apparent, I think, to those who have attended the daily sittings that private members have had, in the first place, an opportunity to dispose of, and have disposed of, a number of their most important motions. They have also had abundant opportunity to take up and dispose of motions which still remain upon the Order Paper. Those motions have been called time after time, and session after session, and many of them have been passed. That goes rather to prove that what remains of private members' business, in the way of resolutions, is not considered to be very pressing or very urgent. Therefore it now becomes time for us to consider the period at which we shall bring this session to a close, and what steps are necessary in order to bring about that desirable end. I am not anxious to press this

motion at the present time if my hon. friend feels that there is any necessity-
, although he has not quite shown any- for further delay. His objection has been that the Budget is not yet down. As to the Budget, what will be discussed in connection with it, it has not very much to do with a great deal of the legislation-with almost all of the legislation, in fact-that is ready for the House, and it does not have a great deal to do with a large number of the Estimates-which we may call routine or necessary estimate-whether we have a Budget or not, and which, Estimates notwithstanding the kind of Budget we may have, must yet be put through for the general purposes and services of the country. That is why I make the proposition that we should get down to the real business of the session and dispose of it as quickly as we can, decently and in order. However, I am quite willing to let the motion lie till another occasion, and bring it up again, in a day or two, this being a sort of advertisement of the intention and desire of the Government.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Can my right hon. friend give us any information as to when we may expect the Budget to be brought, down?


George Green Foster: I think there is not much doubt that the Budget will be down in the course of a week or ten days as the furthest.
Motion allowed to stand.



INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the Government to the report which is being circulated in the press that an International Financial Conference will be held in Brussels on the 25th of May next, and that Canada will be invited to send three representatives to the conference. May I ask whether such an invitation has been received, and who have been appointed as our representatives?
Rt, Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister): It is true that a financial conference of representatives of the various Allied and Associated Powers is called for the date named, and I take it that as a matter of course Canada will be invited to send representatives. The Government has under consideration whether representatives shall be sent, and who they shall be,
and due intimation will be given to the House when a decision is reached.



THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS-MANDATE FOR ARMENIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether there is any truth in the report that Canada has been invited to take over the Armenian Mandate?


George Eulas Foster: I have had no intimation whatever of such an invitation having been extended to the Canadian Government.



THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the -Day:
Mr. LTJCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: Is Canada represented at the San Remo Conference which is now taking place?
Rt, Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER: No. There is no necessity for Canada oeing represented at that conference.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We need the ministers here.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion Hon. Newton AV. Rowell (Minister of Health) for the third reading of Bill No. 27 respecting Food and Drugs:
Mr. I. E, PEDLOW: (South Renfrew): Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been before the House on several occasions, but although it has been considerably amended, many objectionable and contentious clauses still remain, and, therefore, I would move:
That the Bill he not now read a third time, hut that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: I do not know what my hon. friend has in view in asking that this Bill be referred back, Mr. Speaker, it having been in committee on two or three occasions for as long a period as the House desired. The committee passed upon all the proposals submitted to it, and the Bill is now ready to go forward to the Senate. In the absence of any specific proposal from the hon. gentleman by way of amendment I submit that it would not be wise to accept his motion, and I would ask the House to vote it down.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. PEDLOW:: Mr. Speaker, before the-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman has exhausted his right to speak on the third reading of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Acting Prime Minister), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
1. That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the purchasing of departmental and other supplies and materials for His Majesty, and (a) to constitute a board to be called the Purchasing Board for Canada, which shall take over all records, correspondence, documents and supplies of the War Purchasing Commission, and shall have the exclusive power and right to purchase, contract for, inspect and accept supplies for the public service, and all such supplies shall be purchased by the board or under its express
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
[Stage Direction]
(The list of Pairs is furnished by the Chief Whips.)
Messrs.

authority, direction and control; (b) to provide that the board shall have the exclusive control and charge of the sale of all surplus, condemned or obsolete supplies, and shall have the exclusive power of fixing the prices of any supplies transferred from one part of the public service to any other part of the public service; and (c) that no contract or purchase which any portion of the public service has made or may make under the authority of the board, shall be cancelled, extended, amended, or otherwise changed except with the approval of the board.
2.	That the board shall consist of three members to be appointed by the Governor in Council, one of whom shall be a member of the Privy Council and chairman of the board; and the members of the board (except the one who is a member of the Privy Council) shall hold office for ten years, but shall be removable at any time for cause by the Governor in Council, and shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of seventy years, and if not disqualified by age, shall be eligible for re-appointment; and they shall devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties and engage in no other employment.
3.	That the members of the board other than the chairman shall be paid a salary of $6,000 per annum, and such salary shall be paid monthly out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
4.	That the Governor In Council may appoint a secretary to the Purchasing Board, and may upon the recommendation of the board and with the consent of the Civil Service Commission, transfer to the board any members of the staff of the War Purchasing Commission at such sal-' aries as the Governor in Council shall appoint, but not exceeding the respective salaries which they are then receiving; and that such other officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the board may be appointed or transferred from any other portion of the public service under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918, and that provision be made for the payment of the salary or increase of salary of any such officer, clerk or employee so transferred.
5.	That the board shall not, without the approval of the Governor in Council, purchase or agree to purchase any supplies except such as are included in estimates or requisitions sent to the board by the various portions of the public service.
6.	That as far as possible tenders shall be called for in respect of all purchases or contracts to be made by or under the authority of the board, and purchases shall be made from and contracts given to the lowest tenderer. If in any case tenders are not called for, or a purchase or contract is not made from or with the lowest tenderer, the reason therefor shall be clearly and fully recorded.
iHe said: Mr. Chairman, the resolution really explains itself; 1 do not know that the committee will consider it necessary for me to make any extended remarks at this stage. If the committee agrees to the resolution, the debate with reference to general principle as well as to details can proceed on the second reading of the Bill to be founded upon the resolution. As the committee will remember, a purchasing commis-94
sion was appointed in 1915. That commission was an honorary one, and its activities were confined to the purchasing of war materials. With Sir Edward Kemp, then a member of the Government, as chairman, and two other commissioners, the War Purchasing Commission functioned for over hwo years. In view of the regularity and uniformity thus secured in the purchasing of supplies, of the wide distribution of forms of tenders and calls for supplies, and of the general saving made, the Government in 1918 extended by Order in Council the powers of the commission from the purchasing of war materials only to the purchasing of all supplies needed for "the Government service. From 1918, the commission carried on its operations on that more extended plane. The commission had power to enter into contracts and to purchase supplies, the matter of requisitioning being left entirely with the departments. The responsibility in that matter rested, of course, where it should rest; a department knew what supplies it wanted, their nature, quality and quantity, and the requisition in every case had to he made by the department interested. The moneys -necessary for these supplies were, of course, under the control of and had to -be voted by Parliament, so that there were preserved 'both the responsibility of the department for the quality and quantity of the supplies and the responsibility to Parliament for the moneys required for the payment of the supplies. Th§ -commission, being a temporary purchasing commission, has from 1915 to the present time, rather taken the line of supervising and controlling the contracts than furnishing a machinery, in itself concentrated, for the whole purpose of administering, so to speak, the matters of tenders and contract for and inspection of supplies. Therefore, the different officers, or staffs in cases where a purchasing department was in existence before, have been carried on under the commission up to the present time, the work of the commission being in supervising the letting of contracts, in better specification and wider dissemmination of knowledge of what was wanted, in keeping records of calls for tenders, and in coordinating ail these matters so as to prevent- duplication and tend totvards general efficiency.
The Bill purposes to go further than that; it purposes, as a result of the five years' experience which has been had in connection with the operation of the -commission, to put the matter under a little more centralized and directive control of the eom-
[Stage Direction]


mission than has been the case up to the present time. It -will be noticed by the second resolution that the board is to consist of three members, one of whom is to be a minister of the Crown. It is believed that, as these supplies have to be paid for by Parliament through its appropriations administered by the Government which must be responsible therefor, it is advisable to have a minister of the Crown as one member of the commission, he to be the chairman. That will correlate the whole of the business with the responsibility of the department and the responsibility of the Government as administrator of the funds which are granted by Parliament. The two members of the board, outside of the minister who is to be the chairman, will have a salary of $6,000 each. Their tenure of office will be for ten years, and they shall be removable at any time for cause by the Governor in Council. They shall cease to hold office on the attainment of seventy years of age; but they will be eligible for reappointment if, in certain cases, it should transpire that, even although a person has reached the limit of ten years, the advantage of having him serve as a member of the commission is still operative. If it is considered to be best to retain his services, he is not debarred on that account.
Henri Sévérin Béland: The resolution reads:
"And if not disqualified by age." The minister explains that that means that if the *member in question had passed the age of seventy he could be reappointed if his usefulness were such as to make his reappointment advisable.


George Green Foster: That is a misapprehension, not on my hon. friend's part, buit caused by my explanation of the matter.
I was referring to the period of ten years which is the term of office. The term of office expires at the end of ten years; but if at the end of that period it is considered advisable to reappoint the occupant of the office for a second or a third term, because of his experience, general capabilities and powers, he unay be reappoinlted, if he is not disqualified, but the age limit of seventy years ils a bar.
Then the Government may appoint a secretary to the commission, and the rest of the staff of the commission come under the Civil Service rules. Besides the
4 p.m. purchase of supplies there is also and always has been a greater or less quantity of surplus supplies, these, of course, being very large in the ending up of war operations, and it is pTO-
/ilr. Rcrwell.]
posed to entrust to the commission the duty of selling all surplus and unneeded supplies, whatever they may be. Tinder resolution 6, it will be noticed that the rule of tender and contract is to be the operative Tule and to be applied in all cases where it is possible. I do not know that it is necessary for me to make any further explanations. These outline the main features of the resolution, and when we come to the Bill itself we can take up the different details and discuss them fully.


James Alexander Robb: Is it the intention to place all departments of Government under this purchasing commission? For instance, will the ' commission purchase for the Canadian National railways?


George Green Foster: No, not for the railways; they are exempted.


Mr. BEST:: How many purchasing agents are there in all the departments, and if this Bill passes, will the services of those purchasing agents be dispensed with?


George Green Foster: I cannot tell my hon. friend the exact number of what are fully constituted purchasing agencies in the departments. Some departments have a well-constituted agency for purchasing; others purchase through different officers and members of their staffs; but with reference to all these, during the five years that the purchasing commission has been in operation until the present time, it has not been the policy of the commission to dispense with the services of officers who are engaged in purchasing for the. different departments. The commission has utilized the services of those officers who are efficient, and I think they have generally been found to be efficient, and has added such other officers as are necessary for the proper carrying on of its work. It is proposed that the purchasing board to be appointed under this Bill shall utilize the services of all efficient purchasing agents in the different departments. It is not the idea that these men shall be cast aside and a new set brought in. Gradually it will happen, as the experience of the purchasing commission has shown that with this concentration of effort there will be greater efficiency, and, compared with the volume of business, probably fewer officers will be required, but the natural increase of business that takes place will probably offset that. Therefore, there is no violent disruption intended of officers who are now doing good work under

the commission or in the different departments, and their services will continue to be utilized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why is an exception made in the case of purchasing supplies for the railways? What argument can be urged in favour of exempting the railways that cannot be urged with regard to any other department of the Government?


George Green Foster: I think a little thought with reference to the supplies which are required by railways will show my hon. friend' that it would not be advantageous but, on the contrary, very burdensome to have a central purchasing board which is buying supplies for the different departments undertake also the purchasing of supplies for the railways. The purchasing of supplies for departments of the Government is a very large business. The commission, with its less extensive field, though, of course, we have had extraordinary times, has in less than five years made contracts and purchases to the amount of over $250,000,000-more than a quarter of a billion of dollars. Last year the departments themselves, over and above the time and supply contracts which were made by the, commission, made purchases amounting to $48,000,000. Some departments were purchasers along fourteen different linesr and therefore were employing fourteen different sets of energy, and were making fourteen different kinds of competition in the goods that were needed. It is not considered advisable, at the present time at all events-I am not going to say that it never will be advisable-to include in the purchasing board's activities the purchasing of supplies for the railways. Of course, the supplies for the Department of Railways itself will be bought by the board, just the same as the supplies for any other department.


William Stevens Fielding: That is stationery only.


George Green Foster: There might be a few other articles. You need a chair to sit down on sometimes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about
the supplies for the merchant marine? Would they be purchased by the board?


George Green Foster: Those things
which are necessary for the operation of the merchant marine will be bought by the company which runs that branch of the transportation department.
94i


William Stevens Fielding: The company is the
Government. There is something to be said in favour of the concentration of purchasing power in one quarter. Good business reasons can be given for that, but why cannot the same purpose be accomplished by assigning the whole business to some particular department with its ordinary employees, of whom we have a pretty numerous body now, and, according to some hon. members, a too numerous body? Why do you create another commission for this purpose? I can see an advantage in having a concentration of purchasing power in one quarter, but I am not so clear that it is necessary to create another commission. The tendency of these commissions is to get a bit away from responsible government. Sometimes a member of the Government acts as a connecting link, but the general tendency of these commissions is to separate themselves from government authority, and, consequently, in some degree from parliamentary authority. I think the Government could accomplish all the merit that is in their purpose by simply assigning this purchasing work to some one of the departments. We have a pretty numerous body of ministers now, and if there is any argument, and I think there is, in favour of the concentration of purchasing power my hon. friend has abandoned his whole argument ' when he does not apply it to the most important spending department of the Government for the railways will be the biggest purchasing department of the Government. My hon. friend is not going to camouflage the business by talking of purchases being made by the company. The company is the Government, and every argument my hon. friend has advanced in support o? this measure would be stronger if it included the purchase of supplies for the railways. As it is, we are going to allow the Minister of Railways to buy a chair, and possibly some stationery, but as respects the real work of the department that is not going to come under this at all. I think my hon. friend has not logically carried out his own argument. He has failed to apply his argument to the largest fields of governmental expenditure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Acting
Prime Minister has mentioned two very important exceptions, the railways and the merchant marine. Are there any other branches of the Government that will not come undeT this measure?


George Green Foster: I do not think of any other at present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about
the purchase of supplies for. the Militia Department and the Mounted Police?


George Green Foster: I think they
would come under this.


James Alexander Robb: Will the purchase of farms in connection with the soldier settlement scheme be made by this board?


George Green Foster: - No.


James Alexander Robb: What about the purchase of stock for the Department of Agriculture?


George Green Foster: I shall have to make inquiries about that, but my impression at the moment is that the purchase of stock for stock-raising purposes by the Department of Agriculture would not be made by this board. With reference to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding)
I quite see that he agrees with the principle of a central purchasing power, and believes that it can accomplish much good. But his main contention is that it does not go far enough and that it should apply itself to the whole of the railway system which, by the new arrangements, will come under a common management. If my hon. friend will think for a moment he will understand that, taking into consideration the immensity of the purchases, their wide scope and their technical character in a great many respects, there will be a purchasing department in that railway system, well organized, and thoroughly effective. It will be an immense system, and I think sufficient work will be found for an independent purchasing commission organized for the railway itself. If my hon. friend takes any great railway corporation ' he will find that such is the system they adopt. The Canadian Pacific has one of the best equipped and most efficient purchasing systems in the world, and all the great railway and business organizations to-day have this distinct feature that their purchases are not made by haphazard or in detail. Their purchases are made under a systematized co-operative uniform management w'here there is one directive energy behind the policy which guides the operation from the top to the bottom and which applies its directive power to all lines of purchasing down to the smallest detail. It would to my mind unnecessarily burden the system, and I do not think it would be advantageous in the result in the main that all the departments of the public service and of the vast railway system with its correlated marine service should be placed under this proposed management.
fSir George Foster.]


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend was unfortunate in his reference to the Canadian Pacific. If the Canadian Pacific were to adopt the excellent system which he describes and then, having resolved to do that, were to say that as respects seventy-five per cent of the purchases the system shall not apply at all, that wodld be a fair parallel, because that is what the Government are doing. They are adopting a sound principle-I am rather in sympathy with it -but they immediately decide that as respects our greatest purchasing department this method shall not come into operation at all. The right hon. gentleman speaks of an independent purchasing commission for the railways. He is giving us a semblance of responsible government in this resolution for he is providing that the chairman of the board shall be a minister of the Crown. That is the link by which we keep it in contact with Parliament, but as respects all these railway purchases we are to have no power at all. There is to be an independent board with absolutely no parliamentary control. My right hon. friend starts in to reform the purchasing system and he winds up with a resolution: Resolved that this is a good system but as respects fifty or seventy-five per cent of the purchases it shall not apply at all.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has overlooked the fact that by the action of this House, whether he agrees with the conclusion or not, it was decided that the operation of the Government railways should be carried on under one unified system. That system will include the Intercolonial, and the Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. We will have a national system of railways of approximately 22,000 miles in length with the associated steamship services. The whole operation of the system will be carried on. by a responsible board of management. In carrying on the operation of that ,whole system under the board of management, the purchase of supplies becomes part of the necessary work and operation of that system. The work of the purchasing commission does not include the purchases for the operation of the Government railways. It never has. These purchases have been made by the railways themselves. The present board of management of the railways are making the purchases for the railways through their regular purchasing departments just as the Canadian Pacific makes its purchases through its own purchasing department. As I understand, the purchasing department of the

Canadian National Railway system will be exactly The same in its general scope and the character of its work as the purchasing department of the Canadian Pacific.


Henri Sévérin Béland: With this very big difference that in one case the board of directors are shareholders in the company and in the other they are not; so that the control is quite different.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What my hon. friend says applies to the whole operation of the Government system of railways. It does not apply merely to the purchase of supplies. The question is an important one, we have debated it in the House before, and I do not wish to enter into a discussion of it at the present time. But it was felt that the operation of this system of railways should be divorced as far as possible from any political interference or control, and that a responsible board of management should be appointed and held responsible for the operation of the railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is agreed.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is agreed. The purchase of supplies for these railways is a necessary part of the work of the board of management. There is no question of that in this proposition; it is simply leaving to the board of the Canadian National Railways system this important branch of its work. The other portion of the purchasing, that is of supplies for the Government departments is what is covered by this resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: As I understand my hon. friend's remarks they are to be interpreted in this way: The Canadian National Railway purchases are to be made absolutely irrespective of politics but is not to be the system of purchasing for the rest of the departments. Is that what he means?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I mean and say quite the contrary. I said that,the railway supplies were to be purchased by the railway management free from political suggestion and we are providing that the supplies in the other departments are to be purchased equally and wholly free from polities and purchased by tender in the manner provided by this resolution. There is this difference and it is introduced in deference to the view expressed in Parliament; the chairman of this board will be a member of the Government. When a similar measure was before the House last session ob-
*:T
jection was taken that there was no direct link between the commission and the Government. That objection has been removed and provision has been made by .this legislation that the chairman of the commission shall be a rpember of the Privy Council. He does not receive any salary as chairman of the board. He will be a minister presiding over one of the other departments and his compensation as minister of that other department will cover any service that he renders under this resolution.


John Best: I can readily understand why there should be a purchasing commission for the Railway, Marine and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment departments where there are many millions of dollars being spent, but if it is necessary to have a purchasing commission for these large spending departments I do not see any wisdom in having such a commission to do the purchasing for the small spending departments. The hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution told us that these supplies would be advertised for. I understand that is the rule now. I am a believer in a democratic government and in a democratic people and I think there is too much taken out of the hands of the Parliament of Canada now. A by-word throughout the Dominion of Canada tojday is that Government and Parliament have nothing to do but stand up and vote, that everything i,s handled by a commission. If there is something wrong or if there is a mistake made whom are we going to hold responsible-not the Government or Parliament but, we will say, the Civil Service Commission or the purchasing commission. Are the people of this country not to hold anybody responsible for mistakes that are made and anything improper that is done? I can quite understand the purchasing commission buying some goods and having the purchases concentrated here at Ottawa. But take the particular county of western Ontario in which I live-if some brooms or brushes and soap were needed there it would cost as much to send those articles from Ottawa as to buy them on the spot.
I am strongly opposed to anything being done, or any more commissions being appointed, that will take work out of the hands of members of Parliament. The members of the Government and the members of Parliament ought to be held responsible for all purchases that are made and all mistakes that may be committed. We know that at the present time no responsibility devolves upon members of Parliament in connection with the Civil Ser-

vice Commission. We were told at one time that three persons were to be appointed to the Civil Service 'Commission at a certain . salary. Then a year later w7e were told that three more were to be appointed at an increased salary. If that were all there would not be so much to complain of, but there is a huge staff there now.
We were told by the minister who introduced this. Bill that he is not aware that any of the staff of the present purchasing commission will be dismissed. If that is the case what does it mean? It means that we are adding to the debt of this country by every commission that we appoint. We were led to believe that the Civil Service Commission would cost about $45,000 a year, but the facts are that it is costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, and it will ibe the same in the present instance. I think the Government should curb this tendency to appoint commissions. We have ministers capable of handling these matters, and now that the war is over and the departments do not have quite so much to do, I think we should allow those departments to handle the purchasing of these supplies. Surely the work done by these commissions can be placed under the control of the Government departments, so that the Government can deal with these mattters themselves and somebody be held responsible for the matter which is carried out. If there is any class of men to-day in Canada that should be qualified to purchase supplies for the Government's use, it is the men at the heads of the different departments. If this work were allotted to these men the Government and the people could hold them responsible for it. As it is now when a member of one of these commissions makes a mistake you cannot do anything with him. If a Cabinet Minister does anything blameworthy he is held responsible, and when he goes to the people for re-election they put him out, and punish him in that way. But appointments under this commission are made for a term of ten years and during that time this man can do almost what he likes.
It has been said that millions of dollars have been saved through the activities of the War Purchasing Commission. I assert that no man in this House can say and prove that $10 has been saved. I know of a case where a tender was sent in to the War Purchasing Commission, which tender was not accepted. Another contractor was awarded the contract and he bought the goods from the unsuccessful tenderer at a larger amount than the latter had tendered for to the Government, and thus 
the successful tenderer made a very large profit. I am not saying that mistakes have not been made in the past. It is human to err and therefore mistakes have been made, and I suppose will continue to be made. But I firmly believe we ought to hold the Government-no matter what party is in office-responsible, and not appoint a commission involving a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, in order to get somebody a nice fat job, especially when it'is not possible to bring home responsibility to him. I repeat that in my opinion every department of Government ought to be held responsible for its own purchases.
I cannot understand the selection of three men to make purchases for so many different departments, especially when the purchases cover such a wide variety of articles. I do not think there is a company or a corporation in Canada that would send a watchmaker to buy boots and shoes, or a shoeman to purchase watches, -drugs, or commodities of that nature. Yet in this case three men are to be assigned to the task of making these purchases. Why not let the officials of each department do it? They should do it, because no one man is qualified to purchase for all the public departments-that is utterly impossible. Each man knows his own department, and that is all he can, in the ordinary course of things be conversant with.
We are only adding to the existing difficulties by embarking to a further extent upon the appointment of commissions. Surely the ministers and the deputy ministers are honest enough to be entrusted with this responsibility; they have been considered so in the past. Let them see that things are done right and if the existing officials are not competent let them be replaced. Let them advertise for tenders for supplies, and require them to accept the lowest tender, if it is possible otherwise to accept it. (In that way we can hold the Government responsible for whatever is done.


Mr. McCOIG:: I must say that I heartily agree with much of what has been said by my hon. friend from Dufferin. It does seem to me most unfortunate that the Government-after the experience they have had with the commissions that have been appointed in the past, and the consequent dissatisfaction throughout the country- should now be proposing to appoint another commission consisting of two or three men, to make the purchases for all the different public departments. It appears to. me that it is utterly impossible to get two

or three qualified men who would be conversant with the needs of all the departments and know what was best to be done so far as those departments were concerned. We have heard a great deal from the Government on the subject of economy. Would this not be a good time for the Government to take action themselves along that line, cut out such appointments as these, and allow the different departments to purchase what they need as they did in days gone by. Let the Government do that and not create more positions, doubtless positions of a really soft character, for some friends who want to get a job and hang on to it at the expense of the country.
The question was raised a few minutes ago as to whether this commission would make purchases for the 'Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. In this connection arises whether the members of this commission would have the special knowledge as to the requirements, for example, of those soldiers who are taking up farming as a profession. Another question that presents itself is whether these men will be qualified to purchase the seed grain that is needed. I doubt very much if the Government will show good judgment if they attempt to pass this resolution and force upon Parliament the appointment of these men. In my opinion it will only give rise to a lot of trouble. Perhaps we on this side should not worry very much about that but nevertheless I think the Government are only getting into a lot of difficulty which they would escape if they left this matter alone. As the hon. gentleman (,Mr. Best) has stated the heads of departments should be responsible for the purchasing of supplies that are needed. At present there seems to be an entire absence of responsibility. That is illustrated by the answer to an inquiry which was made the other day by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert). The answer was, with reference to the matter in question, that the Government knew nothing about it. By such a procedure as is now proposed the Government are simply shirking responsibility. The only satisfaction the people get out of it is that they have to pay these large salaries when money is needed for vastly more important purposes.


Mr. BLAKE:: I would suggest to the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) that if he had taken the trouble to visit the offices of the commission and ascertained what their course of procedure is, and what they are doing, he would not have spoken as he
did. I have taken that trouble. I went to the offices of the War Purchasing Commission and investigated their work.


Mr. McMASTER:: I can only hear every third word the hon. gentleman is saying.


Matthew Robert Blake: If the hon. gentleman will keep quiet, I will guarantee that my voice will carry across the Chamber.


George Green Foster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) is getting his money's worth even at that.
Mr. BLAKE;: I have investigated the War Purchasing Commission's work and their manner of letting contracts, and how they disposed of the surplus material left with the Militia Department after the war was over. In every case I investigated I found that the commission obtained full value for the goods that were disposed of. There was, for example, the disposition of motor cars. The city of Winnipeg municipal hospitals wished to purchase two motor cars, but were disputing the price on the ground that it was too high. I went into the facts and I was quite satisfied that the Government was getting a very good price for the motor car and I could not see that there was any bargain in it for the hospital people.
This War Purchasing Commission has also had on its hands the disposition of surplus stock bought from time to time by the various departments of the Government, some of which stock had lain in store for probably twenty years. That only goes to show how criminally extravagant were the persons who heretofore looked after the purchasing of our supplies. I am satisfied that the War Purchasing Commission has saved this country millions of dollars not only in the purchasing of supplies during the war, but in the disposal of surplus stocks after the war.
I am satisfied that the principle of establishing a commission which will do the purchasing for all the departments of the government service is right and will work out satisfactorily in practice. For example, with a purchasing board, if a department wants a certain line of supplies, it will have to furnish specifications and those specifications will be checked and advertised, samples will be procured, and the delivered goods will have to measure up to those samples. In that way it does not matter whether even a watchmaker is buying the goods; it is simply a question of follow ing the specifications and seeing that the articles measure up to those specifications.

If hon. members will investigate the War Purchasing Commission I am satisfied they will be unanimous in the opinion that the establishment of this hoard will be a good thing for the country.


Lucien Cannon: Did the hon. member investigate the re-sale in the West of cavalry saddles?


Matthew Robert Blake: I am informed that some of those saddles were bought twenty-two years ago, so it can be seen how extravagant the purchases were in those days. I really have not gone into' the matter raised by my hon. friend.


Mr. PARDEE:: If the hon. member for
Winnipeg thinks the Purchasing Commission to be appointed under this resolution will be so effective that it will save millions of dollars to this country, does he not think the Government might extend the same principle to the purchase of railway and marine supplies?


William Stevens Fielding: And save more money.


Matthew Robert Blake: That is a matter of-


An hon. MEMBER:: Policy.


Matthew Robert Blake: Not of policy, but a matter of great magnitude. With our railways spread all over the Dominion, it is almost impossible for the purchasing of supplies to be directed from Ottawa. I am satisfied that the man in charge of a division on a railway should be responsible for that division's needs. A man who runs a foundry in Winnipeg informed me that all the castings for shoe brakes are made in Hamilton and are then hauled to Winnipeg and western points, so that in the long run they cost really as much as if they had been cast at Winnipeg at a slightly higher price. I think that opens up the desirability of our having confidence in the men at the head of our Railways and Mercantile Marine, and if we have confidence in them, I see no reason why they should not he allowed to do their purchasing through their own organizations.	-


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Does the hon. .member believe in doing away with the Public Accounts Committee?


Matthew Robert Blake: Not at all.


Joseph Archambault: Well, with the establishment of this board the Public Accounts Committee would be of no use.


Matthew Robert Blake: Why not?


Joseph Archambault: Because all the
purchases will not come before the Public Accounts Committee.
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER: Why not?


Joseph Archambault: This board will
be responsible.


George Green Foster: But every account will be audited. The Auditor General's report goes before the Public Accounts Committee and is the subject of review and examination by that committee. My hon. friend is entirely wrong in thinking that this is a contrivance to withdraw this expenditure from review either by the Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee.


Joseph Archambault: But if we have
any criticism about some purchases the answer of the Government will be that this board is responsible.
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER:	But my hon.
friend must be fair about this matter. The 'Government will be responsible, for a member of the Government sitting in this House will be Chairman of the Commission.


Joseph Archambault: That does not
make any difference.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister explain the meaning of paragraph 5 of the resolution? If I understand it rightly, it means that any department that wishes to buy anything will buy through the board, that the board will send estimates to the Governor in Council, that the Governor in Council will approve of those estimates, and then the purchase will be made. But will any estimates be brought down by the several departments before the House of Commons as is done now?


George Green Foster: I explained that very carefully in my previous remarks. Under the commission as i't exists to-day, and under the commission as it will exist if this Bill passes, the responsibility of every department for the (quantity, the quality, the variety and the nature of its supplies is thrown upon itself, - and the (commission buys not a single ounce of anything 'for a department except on requisition by the department itself. So that tlpe ministerial responsibility is kept, in the first place, in each ministerial head of the department, and he is responsible before the Public Accounts Committee and before this House for every article that he has allowed to be requisitioned for his department.


Lucien Cannon: Then if I understand the hon. Acting Prime Minister rightly, the system rwill be very defective. Suppose the Minister of Public Works foresees that for the coming year he will need a certain amount of supplies, he will put in the Estimates an amount to cover the value of those supplies, $200,000, $500,000, or $1,000,000. The moment that money is voted by Parliament what discretion does the board exercise, and how can it economize when the money is already voted? The practice in the various departments is at present uniform and Parliament can curtail the expenditure of any department.


George Green Foster: The very same responsibility in both measure and kind *will exist as would exist if there were no purchasing commission.
Mr. 'CANNON: Suppose the Minister of Public Works has a sum of $1,000,000 for the purchase of suppli&s, can the purchasing board prevent that minister spending the money if he so wishes?


George Green Foster: A minister comes down, commission or no commission, and he asks the House for $1,000,000 for certain purposes of expenditure, he gets that from Parliament, and' he is responsible for the useful and economical administration and 'expenditure of that money. The fact that he has got $1,000,000 from Parliament as no. warrant to him to squander the money,-to spend it uselessly, inefficiently or otherwise; he is held responsible for that, and he is held responsible in exactly the same way if he purchases through the purchasing commission. It is he who has to authorize the requisition, to say whether he wants this thing or that thing, of this quality or of that quality, and he does not shift, and cannot shift, that responsibility on to a purchasing commission or any one else.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But has the responsible minister anything to sav about the price of the article which he has requisitioned?


George Green Foster: He will have just what he has now. This is the general principle which applies now:	The minister
makes up his mind as to what he wants. He does not immediately fix a price; he goes to the supplying public. He makes his specifications, provides for his inspection and calls for tenders. Of these the minister is bound to take the lowest, unless there is some very strong reason why he should not do so. The principle followed in connection with the purchasing of supplies by this commission will be exactly the same.


William Stevens Fielding: Will it be exactly the same. At present the minister has the determination of prices, .because if the price is too high he may refuse to buy. In this case, unless he happens to be the minister presiding over the commission, he will have no voice in fixing the price. I quite agree that he will be responsible up to the point of ordering the goods, but having requested the purchasing commission to supply the goods, he immediately loses all control.


George Green Foster: But the control is there in the interests of the public. What is the commission appointed for? To purchase on clear specifications, in accordance with requisitions made by any department of the Government or by any minister. There are to be specifications; there is to be inspection; the purchase must be by tender and contract. The minister is more than protected. He is in a better position than he was before, because he is protected by a commission of three, one of the members of which is a member of the Government.


Mr. BUREAU:: He hides behind the commission.


George Green Foster: Does my hon. friend call it hiding?


William Stevens Fielding: When my right hon. friend says that the position of the minister under this proposal will be the same as it has been I think he is mistaken. The minister has the control of the price, but under this proposal he will lose that control. Possibly there will be another control which will be effective; I am not arguing that. The minister loses all control once he gives the order to the commission.


George Green Foster: The minister retains that control which it is in the public interest to retain. I have been a minister for many years, and so has my hon. friend. I have had a long experience with reference to the purchasing of supplies for different departments of the Government. This commission will be appointed for ten years. It will have no other object than that of purchasing all the goods that it is asked to purchase according to specifications. The members of the commission will specialize in that work. They will buy in large quantities; they will do away with competition between the departments in the purchasing of similar lines of goods. The hand of the minister is strengthened by the fact that the business of purchasing goes into the

hands of a commission which has a minister as its chairman. The _ member for West Kenit (Mr. MeCoig) is, I am quite certain, a business man. He will realize that in view of the requirements of so large and varied a service as the public service of Canada, with its purchases amounting to from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year, the ministers themselves whose duties are multitudinous, cannot, even with the help of their staffs, get the best articles at the best prices, with the best inspection and the best return for the money expended, as readily as a commission instituted as this is. It will be the sole duty of this commission to attend to purchases. They will become experts in that business. They will come to know all the sources of supply; they will buy in bulk; they will have the whole market at their hand. My hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) has made two or three statements to-day. We all have the liberty of expressing our views, and for the statements that we make we draw upon our information and our experience. Well, I draw from my experience. During the last five or six years I have observed very closely the operations of the purchasing commission. The member for West Kent says that we are appointing another commission, giving fat jobs to the people who need them-some of our favourites, maybe, or something like that. But we have a purchasing commission now; we have had it for five years. We are not adding to the number of commissions; we are simply following along the line of experience. I had something to do with attempting to purchase supplies for war purposes during the first two years of the war, and it is my opinion, based on close observation, that during the last five years we have saved millions of dollars as the result of having this commission purchase our supplies. I honestly believe that; if I did not, I would not be so strongly in favour of a commission. We have keen business men in this committee, on both sides; I appeal to them as to whether the principle is sound. Some one says: If the principle is good, why not apply it to the operation of the Government railways? Well, it is applied in connection with purchases for the T\niwayS. No great railway system would ei it fpr five years if it had not a purchasing department equal in efficiency and thoroughness to the purchasing departments maintained by its competitors. No commercial distributing house carrying on a large business continues the old haphazard system of buying in detail here and there in preference to the system 
of purchasing through a properly equipped . purchasing department. That is the only way you can carry on big businesses to-day, and our railway system, be it large or small, must have that efficient factor in its administration if it is to be successful and to meet its competitors. The Government is simply continuing a principle that has been found to give good results during the last five years; simply asking the committee to give to this purchasing commission a further lease of life so that the same good work may be accomplished in the future as has been accomplished in the past.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I can readily see the advantage of having the purchasing operations of the Government centralized, because it would be folly for, say five men from five different departments to go and buy five desks. What I do not like about this proposal is the establishment of a commission. If it be desirable to have the purchasing operations consolidated-and I am inclined frankly to say that I believe that is desirable-the Government having met the objection which others and myself voiced very strongly the session before last when this matter was brought up, namely, that there should be a minister at the head, might the Government not still go further and propose this to the House? If it be desirable to have the purchasing operations consolidated, let a minister be placed at the head; then let him take by transfers from other departments those men who at present through their experience are skilled in purchasing and have knowledge of the necessities of their different departments, and let them be grouped under the minister. I believe in responsible government; I believe we 'Should have in this House a minister who will explain to us, if needs be, the actions, not of a man over whom he has no control, a man appointed at a salary for ten years, but of one of his -I might use the word "underlings," and I use it in no sense of disrespect-subordinates

that is the word for which I am seeking. If it be desirable to have this purchasing activity consolidated, it should be consolidated under a minister of the Crown, and all the staff in that department should be under the minister just in the same way as other permanent officials are under the ministers of the different departments. That is a suggestion which I would recommend to the Government for adoption. It is sound, and I do not think it in any way affects the objects which the Government say they have in view in introducing this legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to endorse what my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Master) has just said. In that connection,
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) if he has considered the possible embarrassments, difficulties and complications that might arise in the event of a minister of the Crown differing from his two colleagues who are permanent appointees. I can imagine a situation in which my right hon. friend might take a view very different from that of his two colleagues who had been permanently appointed. In what position would he then be placed? Would he have to defend in Parliament an action on the part of the board to which he, as minister of the Crown, wras opposed and which he thought unwise? If he is not to take that position, what position is tliere left for him to take? That seems to open the door to destroying altogether ministerial responsibility,-to leave it to the minister to come down to the House and say: I, as a member of the Government, have disagreed with the whole purchase that has been made; but the majority of the board has ruled and the permanent members of the commission have so decided, and I have, therefore, no choice but to voice the decision of the commission. A few minutes ago an hon. member spoke about the minister hiding behind the commission, and very strong exception was taken to that statement. If a minister of the Crown said in this House that he had disagreed with his colleagues, but his colleagues had thought well to take such and such a course, he would simply be hiding behind his colleagues. As t!he resolution is framed now, the door is left open to the Government to do what-5 p.m. ever it pleases in the matter of purchasing. When it wishes to make a purchase, if it does not desire to assume full responsibility for that purchase, the minister's colleagues can make the purchase and then the minister can say that he was opposed to it. On the other hand when something is done that meets with public approval, the minister can take full credit for it. We are getting far away from ministerial responsibility, and the suggestion made that a minister of the Crown should take the responsibility of centralizing the purchasing work, but should centralize it in a department for which he would be responsible and for which he would have to give an account in all its details on the floor of this House, is much more in accord with the idea of responsible government and with what are the rightful
privileges of Parliament in the matter of criticism.


George Green Foster: It is open to any person to conjure up difficulties that might arise in carrying out any scheme of operation. Contingencies may arise, but a great deal of what my hon. friend has' suggested is fanciful and it it not necessary that it' should originate in or grow up out of this scheme of administration. Let us take one very reasonable answer to my hon. friend's t suggestion. For two or three years a member of the Government was on that purchasing commission, and along with him on the same commission were two other gentlemen.
I refer to Sir Edward Kemp, and from the time that Sir Edward Kemp and his colleagues undertook that work of the purchasing commission, no such contingency as my hon. friend suggests arose. They are business men; they are not playing politics on that commission; there is not the struggle for a vote from this section or influence from another section. These two men are on that commission to carry out a business operation on business principles, and being sensible business men, they agree as a rule; if they do not agree .at first, after conferring with one another, they come to an agreement. But what are the things about which they might disagree? The principle of ten-dor and contract is laid down and they know the goods that are requisitioned for, so that they could not disagree about that. The minister from the other department puts in his requisition, and those three men on the commission have to sit down and consider how they will best get those goods along the line of tender and contract. There is no opportunity for differing as to the wideness with which tenders shall be called for. Under the present purchasing commission, everybody has the right to have his name put upon the list and to be consulted when goods are wanted, and tenders are to be called for them. There could not be any difficulty there. There is no opportunity for the members of the commission quarrelling one with another in regard to the specifications; those are technical matters and the specifications are worked out as to the kinds and qualities of goods. If you take the matter and reason it out from one thing to another, where is this big bogey that the minister may have some internal conflict with the other two members which may result in a sanguinary manner or which may result in a manner which is even worse than sanguinary, where one man chooses to hide behind another? Those are fanciful things, I think. Certainly they have not

cropped up in the experience of the commission while Sir Edward Kemp was its head, and I do not think they need be very much apprehended now. As regards ministerial responsibility, what does my hon. friend want? He wants to go back to the old system-


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear; it is all
right.


George Green Foster: -of patronage, pure and gimple, to have nothing but a political bureau with a political man at the head of it. In his view a minister of the Crown should be at the head of it; and he alone should have the final say with reference to the whole matter; he may have subordinates, but they are not his equals; they are absolutely his subordinates and under his control and command. Will he be likely to get as good, honest co-operation and advice in that way as he would when two business men were working along with him? I . do not think so.


Jacques Bureau: Better.


George Green Foster: In the other case it becomes simply the old political department witlh a member of the Cabinet responsible for buying all the supplies that are needed. What happens when you have a political head? Immediately pressure is put upon him. My hon. friends who have been in 'Cabinets know what that means, and what it will mean in the future. This proposition has been worked out from experience, with a view to devising a business method for getting supplies that will enable us to get away as far as possible-absolutely away, I believe-from political or partisan influence that would direct when and how and from whom supplies should be bought. This is bringing it down to a business basis. Three men, I think, are better than one. You will still have your ministerial responsibility, because one of the members of the board will be a member of the Privy Council.


William Stevens Fielding: It is pleasing to learn that there has been such an amiable disposition on the part of the War Purchasing Commission, but we have no guarantee that we shall always have such a pleasant and amiable person as Sir Edward Kemp at its head. Where is the bogey in what the leader of the Opposition has suggested? Here is a proposal to create a board that shall have exclusive power to purchase things and to engage in large operations.
I need not go into the details, but that board must do certain things, and there are ' 
certain things that cannot be done without the approval of the board. What does that mean? The board, whenever it is mentioned, must mean a majority of the board. What else can it mean? There is no suggestion here that the minister has any power independent of the board. He is chairman of a board of three, and it is quite conceivable that the other two members of the board appointed for a period oi ten years, and with probably a permanent tenure of office, may sometimes differ from the minister. Bet me just give a possible case. Notwithstanding what we say about the abolition of patronage, it is quite possible that two of the members of the board who are to be appointed under this Act, if it shall become an Act, will be friends of the present Government. I only suggest that as a possibility, but it is a possibility.


George Green Foster: They would not be any the worse for that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The board would be open to suspicion in the country.


William Stevens Fielding: These gentlemen hold
office for ten years. Now I state another possibility. It is possible that in a long short of ten years there may be a change of government; it is just possible that there may be a change within two years' time. Again, I am putting it very mildly. With a change of government we will have a minister associated with these two gentlemen who would be of a different shade of political colour, and you might not have the same amiable relations as prevailed between Sir Edward Kemp and the gentlemen who have honoured us by serving us-and I am not questioning for a moment their efficiency. You are going to have on the board twTo gentlemen appointed by the present Government, and before many months are over, in all probability, at all events it is a possibility, a minister who will not be in sympathy with them. Now then, there being a reasonable possibility of a difference of opinion between these gentlemen, how are they going to decide in any other way than by a majority vote? What other way is there? There is more than a possibility, there is every probability, that the difficulties suggested by the leader of the Opposition will occur. The board will be paralysed by a difference of opinion, and if the Government say "This is a board that is absolutely independent, there is the law," a minister of the 'Crown may be held responsible for that with which he has nothing to do. I do not think that the point raised by the leader of the Opposition is a bogey at all; it is a grim reality.


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: At the first flush this looks like a very good business proposition, but I think I recognize in it a similarity to the Bill which was brought in by my hon. friend (Mr. Rowell) two sessions ago, and which had rather a rocky passage part way through the 'House. While the arguments used by the leader of the Government, commend themselves to my mind in some respects, I do not think this legislation in its working out will bring nearly the good results that are expected of it. Think of the variety of the supplies that will have to be purchased for use in different parts of the country, and which will have to be delivered to a thousand different points. I foresee in the first place that this is going to centralize purchasing in the same way that the Civil Service Commission has centralized appointments; that is evident on the face of it, and we know that when anything is centralized in Ottawa it means the cutting out of the smaller and even the bigger towns remote from the capital to a considerable extent.
That may possibly save some money, but the policy that has been pursued in this country, and I think with fairly good results, has been to buy supplies for the public service at the point at which delivery was required. I do not know what the exact figures are, but I suppose we burn half a million tons of coal in the public buildings in Canada per annum. That amount has to be distributed all over this Dominion. Is it the intention that simply one block order shall be given for half a million tons of coal to meet the requirements of the public service in Canada? The minister has not explained that, and it appears to me that these questions will press for solution when it comes to the Act. I just want to guard the minister against possible error if he thinks that a great saving can be made by centralizing all the goods purchased at one point and then distributing them all over Canada.


George Green Foster: So that my hon. friend need not pursue an argument on a basis which I do not think is a proper one, let me say that the Government has not the least idea that the board will purchase all the supplies and store them at Ottawa, for instance, or any other place, in some building, from which they will be distributed as required. That would be the opposite of economy in a country like ours.


William Foster Cockshutt: a success it does not follow that a purchasing board to purchase the supplies required in all the districts, towns and cities from Vancouver to Halifax is going to be a like success. I cannot see it. Every one who knows anything about agencies knows that the big institutions with 300 or 400 agencies scattered throughout the country, and particularly in the West, allow these agencies to purchase supplies for their focal requirements. I do not think that is had business, I think it is the right kind pf business and that it will commend itself to the judgment of those who think the matter over. While the purchasing of large supplies should not go through the departments, and the departments want to get rid of it bedause it has been a source of trouble in the past, and while I sympathize with what the minister says in that respect at the same time I believe it will uot bring the saving to this country that is expected and I fear that if there is not some better ground for it than the minister has adduced-and he has adduced very jnany fine arguments-there will be a rocky road ahead for this measurfe the same as there was when it was sponsored by the President of the Privy Council two sessions ago. It was pretty fully discussed and the same objections that existed then exist inow. I believe that centralization should not be carried to an extreme and that local requirements should be left to local merchants and manufacturers.
' Mr. JACOBS: I agree with every word which has fallen from the hon. member [DOT]for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). When this /resolution was before this House last *session it was in charge of the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) but the Government found the going rather heavy and there has been a change of generalship. It was found that the Bill could not possibly go through under the leadership of the President of the Privy Council and now the father, or head of the family finding it was not child's play has taken hold of it in the hope that it will be more successful. I cannot understand /What object the Government has in attempting to force this Bill through an unwilling Parliament. No person seems to be in favour of it with the possible exception of the minister, and his colleague of last year, who had it in hand. We have been told by several ministers who spoke on the question last year, and I think today, although I was not in the House, that .millions and tens of millions of dollars were saved to the country through the 
operation of the War Purchasing Board. Why was it that these large sums of .money were saved to the country by the War Purchasing Board? If the War Purchasing Board were able to save this money why should not the ministers, each in his department, have saved this large sum? If the ministers are not able to purchase these supplies and to save money why do they not resign with good grace and allow .the members of the War Purchasing Com-,mission to take their places? It would be a splendid thing if we could save the money that we need so badly. I cannot congratulate the right hon. the Acting , Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) on his left-handed [DOT]allusion to the deputy ministers. He .stated that it would be impossible for the deputy ministers to do as well as this new commission which is going to be brought into life. He also said .that they are going to be licked into shape at some time in the future, that when they are so licked into shape they would have as much experience as the deputy ministers and that they were going to do better than the deputy ministers could. I have enough confidence in the capacity and ability of the deputy ministers to believe that they are quite capable of handling their own departments. The ministers themselves have very little knowledge of their departments, they are shifted around from one to the other like the bobbin on a weaving machine. The hon. gentleman who is now acting Minister of Public Works was formerly Minister of Customs and is now Minister of Railways and Canals. In the last six months we have had the Department of Public Works under no. fewer than three ministers and the end i.s not yet The poor overloaded minister who already had the Department of Railways and Canals on his hands-and surely that is enough work for a big man-was placed in charge of the Department of Public Works. How can a man handle the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works at the same time and give satisfaction to the country? It is impossible. They rely upon the deputy ministers to look after the departments because these know all about the technical details of the administration. The ministers are mere figureheads, they are here to answer questions, to give the answers which are put into their mouths by the deputies sitting on the floor of the House. When we have deputy ministers who are qualified by years of service in their departments, why should we want to take the purchasing of

supplies out of their hands and give it not only possibly but probably to men who never purchased a dollars' worth of supplies in their lives? It is not for me to suggest to the Government what they ought to do under the circumstances. We see insurrection on all sides. They cannot hope to have any support from this side of the House because we believe that this Bill is bad in essence and we find important defections already on the part of a number of hon. gentlemen on the other side. Last year this Bill was withdrawn, I believe, as a result of the very effective address which was delivered by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart), who does not sit on this side of the House. Why in the name of Heaven will the Government persist in forcing this Bill down our throats' when we do not want it? The conduct of the Government in this matter leads me to believe in the old saying that whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sure the House appreciates the solicitude of the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) who has just taken his seat for the men on this side and his sympathy is very cordially reciprocated. I may make one or two observations, not so much in reference to what the hon. member has said because I cannot congratulate him on this occasion on making gny important or valuable contribution to the discussion- he has not illuminated the subject by any of those flashes of genius which occasionally interest and entertain the House-but in reference to the remarks of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) he has assumed that the Bill proposes or contemplates a situation which is not in contemplation at all. It never has been suggested-it was not suggested last year-it is not suggested now-that everything should be purchased and assembled here in Ottawa and distributed all over the country. That question came up last year, and was discussed in -the House. As a matter of fact the purchasing today is done, as it has always been done, from Ottawa, in the sense that the final authority rests in this city. If there was no purchasing body at all, the final authority is the minister; the authority proceeds from Ottawa, wherever the purchase is made, no matter what the purchasing body is. It is not the fact, as my hon. friend has suggested, that the purchases of the War Purchasing Commission have been confined to war supplies, although that was the case until January 1918. About that time-I forget the exact date-the scope of the work of the commission was enlarged so as to cover the purchase of supplies for all the Government departments, apart from the Government Railway system. Since then the purchasing of supplies for all the departments has been under the supervision of the commission. Has there been the centralization, which my hon. friend fears, during the past fifteen months in connection with its work? I venture to think there has not been that centralization. Then, if there has not been centralization during the past fifteen months, what ground is there for fear at the present time? The whole object of the Bill, as already outlined by the Acting Prime Minister, is to give the country, in the future, the benefit of the experience and knowledge accumulated during the last five years in improved methods of purchasing government supplies, with the additional advantage that the board will make the purchases, instead of merely supervising them, thereby securing a greater degree of efficiency than has been possible under the existing system. My hon. friend is one of the ablest business men in the House, and he knows that in the purchase of supplies of any kind the knowledge of the purchaser is a most important factor in getting value for the money. There is not a large institution in Canada purchasing large quantities of supplies that does not consider the man who makes the purchases one of the most important of its staff. No single man, perhaps-unless it be the head of the organization himself-can contribute more to the financial success of that organization than the purchasing agent who knows the value of goods and sees that he does not pay more than those goods are worth. I will give one illustration-I cannot state the precise details from memory -which came under my observation where some supplies were advertised for. Tenders came in, but the prices received indicated that the tenderers asked more than the market price of the goods. This was apparent because it is the duty of the board to keep in touch with the market price. The board must know the specifications and be familiar with the quality of the goods, so that if a tender does come in for articles of any particular class which is above the current market price, that immediately becomes a matter of inquiry forthwith. Thus the knowledge the board have accumulated and the experience they have gained in carrying on this work, week after week, month after month, can be applied to every transaction that comes before them. Accordingly if they find that

tenderers are asking more than the current market price, they can decline to accept those offers, and can call for new tenders in order that they may get the goods, at such current market price. Therefore in the purchase of supplies, a knowledge on the part of the purchasers of what the current prices are, is one of the most important factors in the situation.
Now let me deal with the suggestion that the deputy ministers of the various departments, should perform this duty. The deputy ministers have their time so taken up with the routine and other business of their departments, that they cannot pretend to keep posted on the current prices of all the classes of commodities which may be required by their departments. Nor can any minister, with the duties which devolve upon him, pretend to keep in touch with the current market price of all the commodities that his department may require. It is true that if the head of a department happened to be a business man, and thoroughly familiar with certain lines of industry, he would probably be accurately informed and would be able to judge whether the prices asked for the goods with which he was familiar were the current market prices, but another minister might not have that knowledge. There is this great difference between the two systems you have actual expert knowledge applied to the actual conditions of purchasing in the one case as compared with knowledge that cannot he expert from the very nature of the system under which the purchasing is being done.


William Foster Cockshutt: Would the minister explain, with respect to the item of coal that I mentioned, how the Purchasing Commission would proceed? Where this coal was wanted in every city from Victoria to Halifax, and, say 500,000 tons, were required, would the commission buy the coal and distribute it to all those different centres?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I assume that it would be done in the future exactly as it has been done in the past.


William Foster Cockshutt: Then that is all right.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because we have had an independent commission supervising it. My understanding is that the commission call for tenders for the delivery of coal in the particular centres where the coal is required. If coal is wanted, for example, in Winnipeg, they cal! for the delivery of so1 much coal in that city, and the same as re-
gards the various centres throughout the country.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is just as it has been done in the past.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Is not that satisfactory?


William Foster Cockshutt: It is quite satisfactory. That is the system I want continued.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not understand that in a matter of that kind there would be any difference whatever. But when you come to deal with the different departments in Ottawa you may have half a dozen departments requiring the same class of supplies. Then, is it a wise thing to buy in bulk for all the departments in Ottawa at the best price you can get, or is it better to have half a dozen departments competing against each other, buying in smaller quantities the same class of supplies that are needed here? That is the question, and I submit that no business man. who gives the matter careful consideration can reach any conclusion other than it is wise, that it is true economy, and in the public interest to adopt the course of action the Government has resolved on. It is because of the actual experience gained-which the Acting Prime Minister has already referred to-that the Government is of opinion that this Bill is greatly in the public interest.
My hon. friend referred to the introduction of this measure'last year. It was the Prime Minister's Bill last year though he asked me to take charge of it. It was the Prime Minister's desire a year ago that the Bill should go through. No man in this House spoke more strongly in support of the Bill than the Prime Minister himself when he returned from France. At that late period of the session the Prime Minister did not consider it expedient to press the Bill through, but he intimated at the time that, while he withdrew the measure he would be glad to receive any suggestions in reference to its form and the matter would be dealt with at a later session. The Acting Prime Minister has properly brought in the Bill which is at present before the House pursuant to the promise of the Prime Minister made when he withdrew the Bill almost a year ago.. There is this important change in the Bill, a member of the Government will be chairman of the board. The main ground of criticism-or at least one of the main grounds of criticism-from certain hon. members at that time was that they claimed there was no direct connection between the Government and the work of this board, and therefore there was a lack of

ministerial responsibility for it. The Prime Minister controverted that proposition by stating clearly and frankly that the Government could not escape responsibility for the work of such a board, that the Government that constituted that board must accept responsibility for its acts. But in order to make clear beyond peradventure the responsibility of the Government in the matter, the Bill has been amended so as to provide that the chairman of this board shall be a member of the Government. In that way we have direct governmental responsibility and we combine the two essentials: The concentration of the work of purchasing supplies in the hands of men who make that their only business, and whose only purpose is to secure the best value for the public money expended, coupled with responsibility of the Government for the work of the board by the chairman being a member of the Government. I submit that this change removes what was considered a year ago by some members to be an objection and gives us the benefit of the two principles I h ive mentioned. It will mean beyond question a very large saving to the people of Canada in the purchase of the supplies that this country requires.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why are two commissioners needed?
Mr. ROWELL-. Well, my hon. friend might ask that question in reference to a great many phases of activity. I do not know that it is an essential feature of the Bill, but there are three commissioners now and it is considered desirable that two commissioners should be appointed in addition to the member of the Government, because there will be abundance of work for them to attend to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there not at the present time men in the Civil Service of very wide experience in this work of purchasing commodities, and who are giving their whole time to that work and have been so doing for years past? If there are, -wdiy should they not be placed in a department together under the charge of a minister and the work concentrated? If the minister is unwilling to permit them to be associated in this work, it would appear that the real motive for this Bill is rather to provide positions for two individuals


Newton Wesley Rowell: I must express my surprise that the hon. leader of the Opposition, with a sense of the responsibility which should characterize my hon. friend in the position he holds, should suggest that the 95
Government would introduce this Bill for the purpose of providing positions for two men. If my hon. friend wishes to be taken seriously in this House he must" refrain from making suggestions of that kind.
-Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you got any better argument?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would go further and say to my hon. friend that the fact that we have at the present time officers in the permanent service who have been devoting their time for years past to this class of work, and that he is unwilling to employ them in these positions, tends to confirm what I have said. Let me follow what I have just said by adding that I think another factor to be taken into consideration in connection with appointments of this kind is that the Government has reached a stage in the confidence of the people where it should refrain from constituting any more commissions or making any life appointments. I think the government can well afford to leave to one side further apointments of that kind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to retract.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course. _


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you got any better argument?


An hon. MEMBER:: Where does the
shame come in?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Some people cannot see that.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Any hon. member who says that the Government has introduced this Bill for the purpose of creating two positions in the public service shows a lack of sense of responsibility which I do not think hon. members should show in dealing with matters of this kind. There may be differences of opinion about the Bill, honest differences of opinion-and I am not questioning that there are honest differences on matters of principle-but the Government has introduced this Bill solely because it believes it to be in the public interest. There is nothing in the Bill precluding the appointment of the men whom my hon. friend has referred to. The fact



is to-day that of the two commissioners of the War Purchasing Commission one has been the purchasing agent in the Department of Militia and Defence for a number of years-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. H. W. Brown.


Lucien Cannon: Did he buy the Macadam shovel?


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and the other is the man who has been for some time acting secretary of the commission, Mr. W. S. Leckie.
If iit is deemed to be in the public interest as it is that men of experience and knowledge should be eligible for the position, there. is no reason why these men should not be eligible for appointment to these positions and they are eligible. The question is: Who are the best men for the positions in the interests of the public in view of the work they have to do? If this Government had no other object than creating two new positions in the public service, it certainly does not display very great skill in going to all this trouble to do so. If that is all the Government had in view it could accomplish the purpose in a very much easier way and with far less trouble to itself, to the House and to the country. The sole desire of the Government is to get the best possible results. The establishing of such a purchasing, board as is now proposed means the eliminating of the petty patronage that has in the past crept into the purchasing of Government supplies. No hon. member questions that statement. I know the condition that existed here when my political friends were in power, I know the patronage that existed in the purchasing of supplies as a lawyer practising my profession.


Lucien Cannon: What "friends'5 does the hon. minister mean?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I want to make clear in any distinction I draw that it would not be my hon. friend because I do not want to be taken as sharing his views on public questions affecting this country.


Lucien Cannon: Thank you.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to the men who were associated with him in the Government of this country. We know that was the situation. The Prime Minister stated in this House last session that that was the situation under his government in the early days of the
IMr. Rowell, i
war, and that one of the reasons for bringing about the proposed change was to eliminate that patronage. That statement will be found in Hansard. My hon. friends are not ignorant of the situation, they know what I say to be true. The whole question is: Do we want to put the purchasing of supplies on a sound business basis free from patronage in the interests of economy and of good business and for the benefit of the whole Dominion; or do we wish to return to the old conditions of party patronage which prevailed before the war under both political parties? We have the issue fairly and squarely before us and on that issue we must make a choice.


Mr. FONTAINE:: (Translation) Despite all the eloquence of the hon. President of the Privy Council, I still do not see the necessity of. supporting this resolution. Of course,, the Acting Prime Minister has just told us that the Prime Minister, ahsent on account of ill-health, would like to see this Bill go through; but the Prime Minister has been away for so long that he perhaps has had time to change his mind and I would have preferred it if the President of the Privy Council had shown us a telegram or a letter from the leader of the Government assuring us that he still is of the same mind and that he would be pleased to see this Board appointed.
The right hon. the Acting Prime Minister gave us to understand-that in the light of his own experience, he considered the appointment of this Board a very commendable thing. I entertain a great deal of respect for the experience of the hon. minister, but the present Government has committed so many blunders, has given such evidence of stupidity, that we hardly have the right to allow ourselves to be guided by the hon. gentleman's experience.
Is it not the custom for the deputy heads and the chief Clerks of the different departments to attend to whatever purchasing may be necessary in their respective departments? To-day the President of the Privy Council does not claim that these gentlemen lack the ability necessary to look after such purchases; no, he says they have not the time. In that case it should be rather easy to give them the necessary help-if their staffs should happen to be undermanned. Evidently that is not the real reason for this Bill. What the Government wants, as a certain hon. member said a few moments ago, is to incur further expense and likely to find new berths for their friends. The President of the Privy Council claims

that he does not concern himself with such trifles and that no serious-minded man would ever mention such a thing. However, the present Government has done worse things than creating two new $6,000 a year jobs for political cronies. '
I claim that such a Board would be useless. Two commissioners at $6,000 per year, would cost $12,000; but they would require offices, secretaries, stenographers, and a number of other things; before we were through we would be spending between $20,000 and $25,000 a year for this Board.
This very day I had the pleasure of meeting the Minister of Public Works; I asked him to build a wharf in my county, at a cost of a few thousand dollars. He refused, giving lack of funds as his excuse. And this same Minister favours a useless outlay of $20,000 or $25,000 a year, while he refuses to build a wharf for the farmers of the Lie-vre valley which would make it much easier for them to bring their produce to market. That is a. blunder on the part of the Government ; worse than that, I believe it shows their lack of sincerity.
I deem it my duty to protest against the expense involved in tne appointment of this Board; to my mind the money could be used to better purpose. We appoint boards every month; we have too many boards. The Board of Commerce has fallen into neglect; it couldn't do anything; thanks to political wire-pulling it's hands were tied. How do we know that these new commissioners we are asked to appoint will not be mere tools of the Government also,, operating for the protection of the Government's friends. This appears to me as an underhand move to restore patronage.
It is dear that the members of this Board will be the friends of the Government, the friends, perhaps, of the members of this House who will surely wish to favour their friends' friends.
Once more I protest against this expenditure which is useless, and unjust and is not in the best interests of the country. Let the Government look elsewhere. For instance in the city of Hull we are asking the Post Master General to increase the number of postmen so as to afford tire city proper service. We are met with a refusal and the claim that the Government has not the necessary funds. We have no money to build wharves, to increase the number of mail carriers or to fulfill any of the wants of our counties; and still the Government is trying to foist upon the country a new Board which will be absolutely useless and 95J
which will cost us thousands and thousands of dollars every year. For all these reasons I shall take pleasure in voting against this resolution.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Council-


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will pardon me; does he wish to debate the resolution still further?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


George Green Foster: Then, Mr. Chairman, I propose to move that the committee rise and report progress. The Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) is anxious to go on with the Grand Trunk Bill, the consideration of which we had set down for to-day. Now that we have had this preliminary discussion of the resolution, we may leave it for the present and take it up again on a subsequent occasion. I never was more convinced not only of the necessity but of the utility of a measure of this kind, and I propose to put my views a little more strongly even than I have before my confreres on both sides of the House, and not let the subject go until we have had a most thorough discussion of it. I invite members on both sides to make more thorough investigation of the matter and give more thorough thought to it and to what is involved in it before we come to our conclusion-because I feel that a good deal depends upon the conclusion we come to upon this measure. If any one here has time to go to the offices of the War Purchasing Commission and look over the work which is being done there-Sir Hormisdas Laporte will be glad to give the fullest information with regard to it-I think it will be well worth while.


Lucien Cannon: Before the Acting Prime Minister moves that the committee rise, may I inquire when this matter will again come before the House?


George Green Foster: I cannot tell my hon. friend, but it will come speedily before the House.	[DOT]


Mr. HAROLD:: I suggest that the Acting Prime Minister consider the advisability of appointing a Parliamentary committee to deal with this matter and to make investigations.


George Green Foster: WTe can consider that.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.



I486 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
House iagain in committee on Bill No. 54, to confirm the agreement, dated the 8th day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last in committee, clause 1 had been adopted and clause 2 was being considered.


Mr. CAHTLL:: If this Bill were defeated in the House, would the Government go ahead and complete the undertaking with the Grand Trunk people, or what would be the outcome?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: If this Bill were defeated in the House, what would have to be done would be this. Another agreement would have to be prepared with a new schedule, and executed. Then the Grand Trunk Railway Company would have to call another special meeting and notify all the shareholders as they did before, including the eight who were overlooked. That would make everything legal, and the Government would then proceed to take over the Grand Trunk in accordance with the Act passed last year.


Frank S. Cahill: Can the minister give us an estimate of what would be saved in management by amalgamating the Canadian National railways and the Grand Trunk?


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the hon. member means the Grand Trunk Railway system including all the subsidiary companies. That I could hardly say. I have been taking the matter up with my officials with a view to seeing what we could save as regards the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that is a much easier matter to determine than to determine what might be saved by amalgamating the whole system. It is impossible for me to give an estimate of what the saving would be if the entire system was taken over. That is a matter of investigation; I have not undertaken to ascertain it, I could not possibly do it; but the committee that is to be appointed will endeavour 'to make all the sav-
[Sir George Foster.!
ing it can, not by amalgamating, because it cannot do that until after the award has been made, but by working the two railways together until the .award has been made. It is estimated that a very large saving will be effected if the two companies are operated together.


Frank S. Cahill: About how much?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not a railway man and I have not had any experience in making an estimate of that kind, so that an estimate on my part would be only a guess, and I do not think it would be fair to make a guess when I have no knowledge in that regard whatever.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I am sure the minister would expect us, as representatives of the people in this House, to ascertain to a fair degree of accuracy .the character of the enterprise that we are taking over. Last year, when the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Bill was before Parliament, the minister did not have any such information at hand, and he could not tell us very much laibout the standing of the main line or of its subsidiaries or branch lines. Since then he and his officials have had plenty of opportunity to asoertain what this road is earning and what its present condition is, in the main. I am not at this .stage saying that the minister should give us details of the various matters that a business man would like to know if a private concern were being taken over by him, but it will be expected that we, who sit here as representatives of the people, should know something about the property which we are buying and which is to become the property of the Canadian people. If we were isim.ply buying a pair of horses for the Government, we would have to know something about their age, theii capacity, the stock they belonged to, and we would have to make comparisons in order to find out whether we were making a good investment for the three or four hundred dollars we might invest in that simple proposition. The same principles apply here; we are buying a big railway, and 'the minister, before he asks us to confirm this bargain, should know what we are getting. For thait reason the minister should tell us the standing of those roads in the last railway year that has closed.
I do not know when the railway year closes; but if it is the same as the calendar year, the minister ought now to be able to tell us what showing the various roads that are involved in this transaction made in 1919. We had before us last session a

b-Tuebook that was handed around, one item in which showed that something in the vicinity of $2,000,000 earned in Canada had to be sent to the United States to meet deficits on the branches of this same Grand Trunk Railway system, but operating in the United States. That was a very poor showing, and it is a condition of things which the Canadian -people will' not be enamoured of. If those roads went behind last year to such an extent that that amount of money had to be sent out to keep them going, the Canadian people would like to know something about the matter. The minister ought to give us at least a general idea of this business transaction that he is putting before the House and asking us to ratify.


John Dowsley Reid: I take it for granted that the hon. member is asking first as to the physical condition of the Grand Trunk and its subsidiary companies. I do not think any report is published as to the physical condition of the railways of Canada. Unless some complaint is made to the Board of Railway Commissioners, the railways are supposed to be kept up by the companies in a condition that is in accordance with the law's of the country. Last year we had the statement of the president, Mr. Kelley, and other officials, that the Grand Trunk Railway system was being maintained to a standard equal to that of any other railway not only in Canada, but on the continent of America, and when we discussed the matter with the engineers of the Canadian National railways, they confirmed that statement and said that the condition of the Grand Trunk Railway system as a whole was equal to that of, say the Canadian Pacific Railway. While, perhaps, the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway system was not equal to what it was before the war, owing to war conditions, the same thing is true with regard to the Canadian Pacific and all other railways.


Jacques Bureau: They did not have so many trains and the track was as good as before.


John Dowsley Reid: What I mean by my statement is this. They were not able to get rails to make renewals as they would have done in normal times; they used the rails longer so that these were not in good condition, and they were not able to keep up the standard in ties and other things. The Government were not able to investigate the books of the Grand Trunk Railway system and discuss the matter with the
officials of that company until the agreement had been signed. The agreement allowed the Government to put in officials to investigate the whole situation so that they might be prepared when the arbitration took place. We have had a staff at that work since the agreement was signed, and we expect to have all the facts necessary in order to put up our side of the case, and all information that the Grand Trunk itself would have available in this arbitration. But, of course, it will take some little time to prepare that report. As regards the financial condition of the road, that will come before the arbitrators and every side of that subject will be placed before them. The dividends, that were paid on the debenture stock and that amount to some eight or nine million dollars were paid by the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the regular way. So far as I know, their financial condition is as good this year as last, for they have been able to meet their fixed charges with the exception of the first, second and third debenture stocks.
As to the United States end of the railway, I do not know whether it will be possible for me to get a statement of the earnings for that part of the line. During the calendar year 1919 practically all the United States railways were in a sort of pooling arrangement, and the United States Government operated all the roads, guaranteeing to pay the same dividends that were paid by the several railways prior to being taken over. Of course the Grand Trunk will receive its shkre under that arrangement. So far as the Grand Trunk system as a whole is concerned I have had nothing but the most favourable reports, not by the Grand Trunk engineers alone, but by our own officials to the effect that the condition of the road is equal to that of any other railway on this continent.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I should like to ask the minister if he has seen the cablegram in to-day's Journal stating that the financial editor of the London Times thinks that in the interests of the vendors the board of arbitration should be appointed without delay. It might be as well for me to read the item and for the minister to say something about it, since the people who are making complaint stand very high in financial circles:
London, April 8.-A correspondent writes to the Times accentuating the point made by its financial editor on the delay in the appointment ot the Grand Trunk Arbitration Commission.
" Apparently it is not realized," says this correspondent, " that, assuming the award to be


John Dowsley Reid: I had not seen the cablegram. I think probably the shareholders on the other side of the water hardly understand the situation. I am afraid that by some misrepresentations in the press on the other side, I do not say intentionally, a wrong impression has got abroad that we are trying to delay this matter, when as a matter of fact we are doing our best to expedite it. As I stated when introducing the Bill, a mistake was made by the Grand Trunk officials here in Canada, and in consequence two small errors in the agreement have to be corrected. In giving us a list of the companies the Grand Trunk officials omitted one railway from the schedule, and another was improperly described. That made it necessary for us either to have the agreement confirmed in this way by Parliament, or to have another meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders. The shareholders may feel that we are trying to delay the matter, but we are doing everything we can to have the agreement carried out at the earliest possible moment. I think when this Bill is passed by the House, enabling us to appoint the board of arbitrators at once, the people on the other side will be satisfied and will feel that the Government and the people of Canada are trying to carry out the agreement provided for by Parliament last session. That is one reason why, as soon as the matter has been thoroughly discussed, the Bill should be passed as speedily as possible. There is the further reason that the sooner the different re' Is are worked as one system, instead of separately, there will be, we hope, a great saving in operation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend understands, of course, that So far as correcting these two errors and ratifying any corrections is concerned, we on this side of the House are ready to let the Bill go through to-night to expedite matters. The only delay now is with regard to the general matter of ratification; as there is something in the Bill that we do not yet quite understand.


John Dowsley Reid: I quite understand that.
It must be remembered, however, that if the errors are not corrected in this way it will be necessary to have another meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders. That would mean sending out 70,000 notices of the calling of the meeting and probably two or three 
months further delay, during which time the shareholders would probably feel that we. were trying to raise some issue in order not to carry out the agreement. By providing for ratification in this way we are saving time, and it is not doing any injustice to the shareholders, because as I have already explained, there are only two or three who could possibly raise any objection.


Mr. JACOBS:: Who is responsible for the mistake which makes it necessary to bring this Bill before the House?


John Dowsley Reid: The Grand Trunk Railway Company, as I explained when introducing the Bill. I then read a letter from Mr. Biggar, solicitor for the Grand Trunk, addressed to the Minister of Railways and Canals dated about a month ago, directing our attention to the fact that the schedule omitted one small line of railway three miles long, and that another railway had been described in the schedule as being held by the Grand Trunk under lease, whereas it should have been described as held by the Grand Trunk through majority stockholding' The hon. gentleman is a lawyer and will understand that in order to have clear title even to this three miles of railway, it should be mentioned in the schedule, and the particulars respecting the other line should be correctly given. After we received that letter I sent for Mr. Kelley, the president, and we took this matter up with the Deputy Minister of Justice and with the solicitors who have been engaged by that department for the arbitration. They decided that if we did not ratify the agreement in this way it would be necessary to have another meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders.
After Mr. Kelley had gone to Montreal and [DOT] consulted with their solicitors-I think they were Mr. Phippen, Mr. Atwater and Mr. Biggar-he wrote a letter to myself asking that we remedy this mistake by introducing and passing this legislation. The legislation has been introduced at the request of Mr. Kelley, President of the Grand Trunk, in order that we can get the agreement ready at the earliest possible moment.


Samuel William Jacobs: Owing to somebody's blunder this matter has cost the country a very large sum of money and Parliament has been obliged to discuss it for the last week or ten days.


Mr. COPP:: My hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) asked the minister what would happen if this Bill were defeated and the minister said that the result would be that

we would have to enter into a new agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company because these two railways were misnamed or left out of the schedule. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said to the minister that the Opposition are prepared to accept that portion of the Bill which is designed to remedy that mistake, so that there will be no need of any further agreement with regard to these two railways. The next feature that appeals to me is this: The people, through their representatives in this Parliament, are the vendees in the present; undertaking and bargain with the Grand Trunk. A mistake has been made by the Grand Trunk shareholders or directors in calling a meeting for the ratification or confirmation of the agreement for taking over this road. As a result of that mistake some of the shareholders were * not given proper notice. Now the minister comes to this House and asks it to ratify an agreement, on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company with whom we are dealing and with whom the people, whose representatives we are, are supposed to make the best possible bargain for the purchase of the road. What must the people of Canada think when they read the statements made by my hon. friend? Because the solicitors and directors of the Grand Trunk have made this error, the people of Canada, who are the vendees and purchasers of the road, are asked to step in and confirm and make legal the blunder that the Grand Trunk representatives themselves have made. It seems to me that the minister is going just a little too far when he asks this Parliament solemnly and seriously to say we are so anxious to take over this railway, that we have made such a splendid bargain that we are prepared to say: It does not matter about your mistake, we are going to ratify the agreement to save any further trouble. It does appear to me that this is absolutely irregular and opposed to all principles of business dealing between a vendor and a vendee. That is the first consideration.
The next point I want to take up with my hon. friend is the fact that these eight or twelve stockholders were not notified of this meeting. If they were not notified of the meeting they had no right to go to the meeting and to state any objection or consider the question in so far as they were concerned. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this Parliament should at least be the guardian of the minority of the stockholders and see to it that this bargain is not
put into effect until the Grand Trunk Company give every one of their stockholders an opportunity of being heard when the question is being discussed at the meeting. Under these circumstances it seems to me that the minister is going a little bit too far in coming to this House and asking it to ratify this agreement without giving any further or more detailed information in regard to the condition of the railway and what it is going to mean to this country. It is an unusual request that the minister makes and one to which this House should give very serious consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Just as you took the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I made a very reasonable request to the minister for information in the full confidence that if he had the information he would give it to the committee. One point was as to the physical condition of the road. With regard to his information he is not any farther advanced than he was last year. He had the famous letter from Mr. Kelley, the manager of the road. He had that letter then; he has that letter now; nothing more, nothing less. I submit to this committee and to the Canadian people that in dealing with so vast a proposition as to taking over of the whole property of this company we should scarcely be satisfied as to the physical condition and value of the road upon the mere evidence of a letter of the manager of the road. It would be his duty, no matter how conscientious he was otherwise, in the interest of the shareholders, to make the best possible showing for the road. I heard the letter read last year; there is very little to it. It is hardly conceivable that the minister and the Government should ask this country to ratify that agreement when we have no evidence of the physical condition of the road except that which is afforded by a single letter of the manager of the Grand Trunk railway. The minister says that as far as the physical condition of the road is concerned he believes it is first class. We have a report on the physical condition signed by at least two men some time in the year 1916- a commission appointed by this Government for the purpose of ascertaining the physical condition not only of the Grand Trunk but of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern. One of the commissioners was the present Finance Minister in this Government (Sir Henry Drayton) who must furnish the money for the purchase of this road. That hon. gentleman reported in 1916 that the road was in bad shape, and that it


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has stated that the Drayton-Acworth report disclosed the fact that the Grand Trunk railway at that time was not in good physical condition, and that $50,(Du,000 would be required to bring it up to proper standard, and he has asked me how much money has been expended on the road since that report was made. He could hardly expect us to have that information, for the reason that we would have no right to examine the books of the Grand Trunk in order to ascertain how much money had been expended upon the line since the submission of the Drayton-Acworth report. That information cannot be obtained until an investigation has been made. Such an investigation is to be undertaken, and in addition the arbitrators will be required to examine into the physical condition of the road-in fact they must look into the whole condition of the railway and make their award accordingly. As to how much money it will take to bring the Grand Trunk up to the condition suggested by my hon. friend, I can only repeat that the Grand Trunk officials themselves, as well as the officers of the Canadian National system, are of opinion that the Grand Trunk is in as good a state as other Canadian railways, but that as a result of war conditions it will have to be improved. That is a question of maintenance, and the work of improvement will be undertaken in the same way that other roads are carrying out improvements.
The hon. gentleman based his argument on the Drayton-Acworth report, but I think he will bear me out in the statement that the same commission strongly recommended that the Grand Trunk be taken over and joined up with the Canadian Northern system. In other words, they declared it would be impossible for the Grand Trunk railway to continue solvent if it were left by itself and compelled to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific as a part of its system. The same commission recommended that we should guarantee the debenture stocks and pay something by way of dividends on the first, second and third preference stocks. If the hon. gentleman will carefully read the report in question and compare it with the Bill that was passed at the last session of Parliament, he will see that in the terms agreed upon for taking over the Grand Trunk and its subsidiary companies, the recommendations of the Drayton-Acworth Cofnmission are being carried out.
It has been explained so many times I almost hesitate to take up time by repeating it, that as regards taking over the Grand

Trunk Railway system we are in this position:	Owing to the Grand Trunk Pacific
being in the condition in which it is, if we did not take over the Grand Trunk, the parent company, the latter would have to go into insolvency. Rightly or wrongly, Parliament last session decided that it was not in the public interest to permit the Grand Trunk to go into insolvency, but that the Government should take over the Grand Trunk and its subsidiary companies, including the Grand Trunk Pacific, and make these lines part of the National Railway system of Canada. That having been decided upon, the necessary agreement was drawn and has been before -the House for some time. The suggestion of the leader of the Opposition that we should simply content ourselves with rectifying the two mistakes that were made, means that there would have to be another meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders to ratify these corrections.
I know what the hon. member would say in reply to that: "We are willing, in addition, to ratify this agreement in so far as the two companies are concerned." Of course, I think he means tha^But let me state further, and it has been brought to the attention of the House, that a question was raised by the solicitors in England for the Government as to' notice having been properly [DOT] given to the eight shareholders in Canada. There is no question about notice having been duly given to the 70,000 shareholders in England. The question was raised although it -was admitted that six ol those eight shareholders were in England and had received notice there. That question having been submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice and our solicitor, it was thought advisable to have the agreement confirmed by Parliament so that no possible question as to its validity could be raised in future. The only persons who can be affected by the ratification are those two shareholders in Canada. At the present time they hold a very small amount of the four per cent stock guaranteed by the- Grand Trunk Railwray, and they will be affected to the extent that that same stock will be guaranteed by the Dominion Government instead of by the Grand Trunk Railway, so that they will be in a much better position. I may add that the Grand Trunk solicitors in England take the position that this stock is non-voting debenture stock, and that even if those two stockholders had received notice they would not have a right to vote.
When the Minister of Justice explained the position last week he stated that this
question having been raised it is thought better that Parliament and the people should feel that when the agreement is finally acted upon there remain no question of doubt as to its legality. Of course,, the hon. member is against the agreement as a whole, he does not favour the taking over of the Grand Trunk, and he expressed that opinion last year also. No one can object to his entertaining that opinion, but I feel that when a majority of this House passes on any question it is finally settled, and it is for the honour of Parliament and of the country that the agreement should be carried out.
Mr. JAiOOBS: I would like to have some information from the minister as to whether he is aware that last year the Grand Trunk line between Montreal and Toronto was in such an unsafe condition that the Board ot Railway Commissioners ordered the company to make the repairs necessary to insure the safety of the travelling public?


John Dowsley Reid: I think I know that
part of the line as well as the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National lines between Montreal and Toronto, for I travel over them frequently, and I must frankly say that my impression is that the Grand Trunk line is in better condition than either of the other two railways, and I think that is the impression of the public as well. I have not heard of any complaints. I do know that last year the company did a great deal of work between Montreal and Toronto, and they are still doing a great deal of work in the way of improving the line, for the reason that during the war they were up against it in getting rails and ties just the same as were all other railway companies. I live close to the Grand Trunk tracks and I travel over them every week, and for a year at least since the war the company have had new ties all along the line. I would not be a bit surprised at a report being made that probably some portion of the line was not in as good condition as it should be, but the same thing applies to the other railways, for the reports I have received are to the effect that the other railways are npt in very good condition. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the same condition exists in the United States, the whole transportation system of that country having been allowed to run down on account of the inability during the war to get rails, ties, and labour to make current repairs.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman a few' minutes ago made the remark that he was

anxious to see this agreement carry so as to effect a saving by getting the roads under one management and having more uniformity in operation. I am rather skeptical on that subject. Two years ago we passed a law incorporating the Canadian National Railway Company for that very same purpose, but the company has not yet been organized, and none of the promises which were made at the time as to economy, uniformity and better service to the public has been kept'. Here we are to-day with the Canadian National Railway Company unorganized-supposed to be operating, and not operating. The Order in Council authorized under that Act has not yet been passed. I have asked time and again for a return to get the Order in Council, but I am always sent the Order in Council that was passed previous to the incorporation of the Canadian National Railway Company. Is it any wonder that I am rather skeptical about promises made in this House to induce us to pass such agreements? The present conditions work an injustice to the public. The Canadian National Railway Company may be operating more than the Canadian Northern Railway, but not by virtue of the Act which two years ago we passed under closure because the Government were in such a hurry, but which has not yet been utilized. Before I proceed let me put one question to the minister:	Is
the Canadian National Railway Company now organized; and, if so, who are the directors, and when were they appointed?
Mr. .T. D. REID: At the time that Act was being passed I explained that we required it for the purpose of transferring to one company the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental railways and any other railways which we might take over by purchase or lease. I stated also that we expected to take over the Grand Trunk Railway system; at a ty rate, I think I did mention it. All the railways owned and controlled by the Government to-day are being operated in this way.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want the minister to shift his ground or to run away from the question. Is the company organized or not?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it is not organized, and I was just going to tell the hon. member why. A board of management was first appointed to operate the Canadian Northern railway. Then by Order in Council, we transferred to this board the management of the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental, the Quebec and Saguenay, the Hudson Bay, and all the railways that we had. fMr. Bureau.]


Jacques Bureau: Was that prior, or subsequent, to the passing of the Act incorporating the Canadian National Railway Cbm-pany?


John Dowsley Reid: It was subsequent to the taking over of the Canadian Northern-


Jacques Bureau: I suggest that the minister ask his deputy about it. He might have a better memory.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events, the lines which I have mentioned are under that board of management.


Jacques Bureau: Was that prior, or subsequent, to the passing of the Act?


John Dowsley Reid: It was prior to the passing of the Act, so my deputy tells me. The reason why we have not brought that Act into force is that we have been waiting until we should get the Grand Trunk and reorganize the whole railway organization and put it all under the direction of one board. If any time were lost or trouble caused in the operation of these railways through waiting until we should get the Grand Trunk and put these systems all under one board and operate Diem as one, I would not hesitate to brin^nhat Act into force. When the time comes to appoint a board of management for this great railway system of 22,000 miles, whoever may be the Minister of Railways should recommend a board which will include representatives of all the roads that we have taken over. There is no doubt that when we take over the Grand Trunk we shall have to reorganize the whole organization, and consequently that Act has not so far been brought into force.


Jacques Bureau: When the Bill to incorporate the Canadian National Railway Company was introduced two years ago, special haste was manifested in putting it through. Now, I made a charge at that time-and it was because that I made that charge that the closure was applied to the discussion of the Bill-about the blank charters that were being granted under schedule 2 of the Act.
I said that somebody was going to be benefited by that. Them inister brings forward today in support of the ratification of this agreement one of the reasons brought forward at the time of the passing of that Act.
I must say that I am rather skeptical about this thing. The Act has been on the statute book for two years, so that the explanation given by the minister is no explanation at all. He says: It is not that I expect to increase my business; I am going to susi>end my organization Well, that is lack of business.


John Dowsley Reid: Have you looked out in the corridor to see if your gargoyle is there?


Jacques Bureau: My gargoyle is not there, and I hope it will not be.


John Dowsley Reid: I am afraid I cannot put it there now.


Jacques Bureau: That is all right; we may differ on the subject of gargoyles as well as on the subject of the administration of railways. My grievance is that this Act to incorporate the Canadian National Railway Company was passed two years ago under false pretenses. That is a serious
9	p.m. charge, but I make it coldly and deliberately. I think before I speak, and I say exactly what I think. That Act was passed ostensibly for the purpose of bringing all these railways under one administration. We discussed the expropriation clause of that Act; it was the subject of quite a debate. I contended at the time that the expropriation clause was unfair; that if the Government wanted to go into the railway business they should take their chances the same as any other railway company. But they have not done it. Now, if I * desire to bring an fttion against the Transcontinental railway I have to write to the Secretary of State; he turns the matter over to the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Railways gets it; then it is sent to Mr. Hanna in Toronto; and subsequently it reaches the superintendent of the line.


Ernest Lapointe: It takes two years.


Jacques Bureau: Why, it has already taken seven months to reach a certain stage in connection with a small claim made by a lumberman whose bush was burned last year through the negligence of employees of that Government road. So it is with the Intercolonial. The main object of passing that Act two years ago was not to ratify an Order in Council that had previously been passed. I asked my hon. friend whether that Order in Council that he referred to had been passed prior or subsequent to the Act of two years ago, and he has to admit that the Order in Council came first. As I say, that Act was passed, not to ratify an Order in Council, but to better conditions then existing. But, although that Act has been on the statute book for some time nothing has been done to carry out its terms. For my part, I shall not accept as an excuse the argument that the Grand Trunk was not then a part of the system and that the Government intended to take it over. My hon. friend may turn aside to discuss gargoyles or anything else that he likes, but I want to get at the facts. The member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) this afternoon gave us an answer to the question: If you are going to increase your business, how are you going to carry it on? The Government are bound, in view of the promises which they have made to the people, to put the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern under the same administration, not merely, by virtue of an Order in Council, but with due regard to legal conditions and legal considerations. I do not see why I should have to take out a petition of right in order that I may sue the Transcontinental whereas in the case of the Canadian Northern I can go before the courts of a province and get justice. Therefore, I am not ready to accept the reasons given by the minister-well, I shall not call them reasons; his explanation was merely a simulacre, as we would call it in French. He now asks us to ratify this agreement. It was provided when the agreement was made that Mr. Stockholder of the Grand Trunk should have the privilege of ratifying it, but that the people of Canada, who were paying for the road, should not. If blunders have been made, they will have to be rectified. But this agreement was brought before the House during a session that had been called for quite another purpose, and the people had no time to examine it. Before we give our assent to this ratification, every bit of information pertaining to this matter, so far as hon. members desire it, should be brought down.


Lucien Cannon: The Minister of Railways since the discussion of this Bill commenced, explained to the House that the Bill was one of minAr importance; that the two points settled by it were very secondary, and that the House of Commons would be well advised not to discuss this piece of legislation at great, length. The minister said that two slight mistakes had occurred, one committed by those who were entrusted with the preparation of the schedule annexed to the agreement. The name of one railway had been omitted and another was described as being under lease when, as a matter of fact it was the property of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The minister was perfectly justified in telling us that this mistake was of small importance, because he read afterwards very bulky correspondence from legal counsel on both sides, that is, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government, and these lawyers, contrary to habit, although they


Ernest Lapointe: Between the devil and the deep sea.


Lucien Cannon: Having learnt some philosophy at college, whenever I was placed in this unfortunate position of choosing between the President of the Privy Council and the murderous Lenine and the treacherous Trotsky, I would say to myself "De deux maux il faut choisir le moindre." The President of the Privy Council forgot- when he was talking to us about Bolshevism and its dangers, that he was one of the leading Bolsheviks in this country, because he promoted the general nationalization of public utilities- What is the Soviet system? What are the "commissaires" in Russia? I do not wish to make a comparison that will hurt the feelings of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways., but he is .a "oommissaire".
A commissaire is a gentleman who takes over all the industries of a country and runs them in the name, and on behalf, of the government of that country. Some people have been entrusted with the Tunning of mills; others have been given the control of railways, and to others,-and this is a very pleasant task,-has been given the guidance of young ladies and old maidens in the direction of matrimony.
So it is that I say that this Government

is introducing Bolshevism. We may have defects in our province, Mr. Chairman, but there are certain things we hold sacred; they are our traditions, our religion, and our households. I say that the time has come for the representatives of the people of Canada to put a stop to this radical policy of the present Government, especially when Bolshevism is introduced into this country by a minister who carries a Bible in one hand and a temperance tract in the other. Let people be shown in their true colours. If the hon. President of the Privy Council is a Bolshevist, let him not put on the mask of a Methodist in this House. In discussing this question in the light of past events, I say that after the declarations heard on the other side as to >
nationalization, this Government is placing the country in danger of very soon having a soviet government.
I know the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is surprised. He would not like to belong to a soviet government. A good Irishman is he when in Canada. Some people say he is not as good when he reaches Paris and has to discuss the Irish situation facing Lloyd George.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him: who are the "some people" who say that, or, does he himself father that falsehood?


Lucien Cannon: I have three children at home; that is enough to father. I do not father any such thought, but I read the newspapers. I know they are misleading. When the American representatives of the Irishmen of the United States came back to America and made their report, if they said anything in connection with the Minister of Justice, I hope that what they said was untrue, but they said something.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to say what it was they said?


Lucien Cannon: What they said is rather negative. They reported what the minister had not said.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman has finished-


Lucien Cannon: I beg your pardon?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman has finished-?


Lucien Cannon: I have only started.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well then, I have only to express my sincere regret that the hon. gentleman has introduced this subject into

the present debate. If he had any realizing sense of what Irishmen feel in regard to the country of which he is speaking, he would understand the gross impropriety of his present line, and how utterly injurious it is to that country and to its best interests.


Lucien Cannon: As far as Irish feelings are concerned, I do not wish to be told by the Minister of Justice what they are; I am an Irishman myself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: I am always willing to receive advice provided that those who proffer it have shown that they are entitled to give it. On Irish matters, unfortunately, I do not think the Minister of Justice is in as good a position as he is on the Grand Trunk Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must be in excellent position on the Grand Trunk Bill then.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to prolong the discussion of this question, -but if the minister wishes to discuss it further on another occasion I will be perfectly willing to hear any explanation he has to give. And I think his explanation will be welcomed by every Irishman in Canada; it has been awaited for a long time.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon.
gentleman (Mr. Cannon) is certainly abusing his privilege in entering into a discussion of this kind.


Lucien Cannon: I regret that the loyal leader of the Government has led ipe out of order. Now, Mr. Chairman, we heard last night a very interesting speech on clause 2 by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). The member for Red Deer has discussed this question, as he always does, as a schoolmaster fresh from England. As far as the member for Red Deer is concerned, I think the time has come to tell him frankly my opinion, and my sincere opinion is that true Canadian-Liberals are born here and not imported. The new member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) has expressed his surprise that after the discourse of the hon. member for Red Deer anybody else should dare to get up in the House and discuss any further. If the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton was surprised last night, the future has many other surprises in store for him, because I do not think the hon. member for Red Deer will ever give this House the final word on that or any other question, because his opinions on questions

vary according to the side of the House on which he is sitting. I have been listening to the hon. member for Red Deer for the last four sessions. I have heard him say "Black" when he was on the right of the Speaker, and now I hear him say "White" with the same eloquence and the same strength when he is sitting on the left of the Speaker. The hon. member for Red Deer ought to learn one thing, and learn it quickly: Canadian problems are to be solved by Canadian ideals, and it is the best way.


Jacques Bureau: The only way.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, the only way. The hon. gentleman has brought forward a solution for this railway problem and has asked the Minister of Railways to consider that solution. His solution is free trade. I do not know what my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) thinks of the remedy.


William Foster Cockshutt: No good.


Lucien Cannon: As far as I am concerned I would say that the member for Red Deer has camouflaged the issue by talking free trade. He is in favour of the nationalization of railways for one simple reason: It is because by nationalizing the railways of Canada, the eastern and central provinces will be called upon to pay for the western provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear, and it has
been done before.


Lucien Cannon: Some hon. member made an observation which I did not catch.


Mr. VIEN:: Louder please.


Jacques Bureau: Hon. gentlemen opposite are eloquent by their silence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Jacques Bureau: Lost.


Lucien Cannon: As far as the hon. member who made the remark "carried " is concerned, all the measures brought before Parliament would have been carried judging by the attention he has given as expressed by his speeches in this House.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, when interrupted, that the member for Red Deer, by talking free trade simply wanted to sidetrack the main issue involved in this problem. If the House wishes to discuss this problem, and discuss it on its merits, the question must be considered as to who is going to pay for these railways. My hon.
friend, the member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) has expounded the theory that the users of the railway ought to pay for it, and I think that is just. The member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), who always has lots to say on the subject of railways, tells us that the deficits on the Government railways ought to be met By taxes. Taxes on what?


Jacques Bureau: On farms.


Lucien Cannon: Taxes on farmers? Taxes on newspapers?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no.


Charles Joseph Doherty: God forbid!


Lucien Cannon: Taxes on what, Mr. Chairman? It is very easy for hon. members to get up and declare generally that we have got to impose taxes. But we should know what kind of taxes they wish to impose. The farmers have started a new movement. Their movement may be good or it may be bad, but it will only lead somewhere if they have a definite programme. It is very easy to talk of meeting deficits with taxes, but I would like the members of the new party, or the members opposite to tell us what taxes they would impose.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said, the railway situation in Canada is so bad that every business man in the country is opposed to the present policy of the Government. Nevertheless, in accordance with advice given by a former member of the Cabinet they "carry on." I think they will carry on till they are carried out, and the sooner the better.
Mr. MoQREA: I have been listening with a good deal of attention to this debate ever since its inception. I have heard the explanation given by the Minister of Railways and by hon. gentlemen supporting the Government, and I have come to the conclusion that the Government are wandering and are lost with respect to the simplest and most common-sense business principles in connection with this railway system of theirs. We have been for years operating the Intercolonial railway as a government-owned road. We have also been operating the Canadian Northern for some considerable time, and yet the Government do not seem to have made up their minds with respect to the simplest pair of the policy involved, and that is the question of rates. The Minister of Railways has not yet announced what is going to be the Government's programme. On a former occasion I said, and it is scarcely necessary to repeat the statement,

that I am opposed to government ownership of railways, or anything else of that character, first, last and all the time. 1 am convinced, after the experience of a lifetime in business, that the Government cannot carry on an undertaking of that nature either economically or intelligently. Why? For the simple reason-and you will find it to be the case if you examine the situation closely-that while there are some good men occasionally in the employ of the Government the great majority of them are men who have failed at everything else and cannot make a living in any other way than by applying to the Government for positions and jobs. I would like to ask any hon. gentleman in this House, or outside of it, who has had any business experience, if he thinks he can profitably or economically conduct and manage a business with men of that class. Now, to my mind-and when I say this I feel that I am in exactly the same position as the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt); I am speaking possibly against my own personal interests-there is ho reason why the Government should not allow railway rates to be increased proportionately with the cost of operating those railways before the war. Within the last five or six years the cost of wages, of equipment, of material-the cost of everything in connection with the operation of a railway or any other industry-has at least doubled. That being the case what increase has taken place in railway rates? Those rates have been increased forty per cent. When the railway companies asked for a further increase in rates from the Board of Railway Commissioners that board-I presume taking thei*-advice from the Government-simply told them, "No, you cannot have any increase in rates." Now is it reasonable, or in accordance with the dictates of common sense to ask the railway companies that are giving this country service to carry on the freight and passenger traffic on an increase in rates of simply forty per cent when the cost to-day of operating their systems is at least one hundred per cent higher than it was five years ago? It surely is not. Yet the Government do not seem to have any policy on this question. When the Minister of Railways is asked what is going to be the policy of the Government he replies, "I cannot tell, the people will have to decide that." I think it is about time the Government reached a decision on this question. If this railway system is going to be operated under government manage-
ment it is time for the Government to adopt the simplest common-sense and business principles. We have been told that the reason why they do not increase the rates on the Government railways is because if they did so, the Canadian Pacific would participate in that increase, and that would be a crime. If the Canadian Pacific railway had been managed as the Canadian Northern railway and practically every other railway in this; country has been managed it would be in the same position. It is because the Canadian Pacific railway has been well managed that the company has made a success of the undertaking. Evidently the: purpose of the Government is to penalize thrift and good management by saying to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company:	We will
not increase the -rates on the government-owned roads lest you should participate in the benefits. In my judgment that is neither good business nor honesty.
During the past few years when railway strikes have been threatened, the Minister of Labour has been requested to intervene and settle the difficulties between the railway companies and their employees. What has been the result? In every instance the minister has sided with the employees and has allowed them an advance in wages. I am not complaining of that. The cost of living is so high to-day that I do not think the men are getting more than enough to live on. But what'about the railway that is giving this country good service on a forty per cent increase in rates, whereas the cost of equipment and labour has at least doubled? I think the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) yesterday advocated keeping down the freight rates to their present level. My theory is that there should be a limit to the amount of increase to be granted, but if the cost of operation has increased one hundred per cent and the increase cannot be avoided is there any reason why freight rates should not be increased in proportion? If this government-owned railway system after getting such increase showed a deficit, let the country bear that deficit; but until the system is allowed to charge rates in proportion to the cost of operation it is not . fair to the country as a whole that the _ people who use the roads-and I am one of them-should not pay rates in proportion to the increased operating cost
The Minister of Railways informed the House last week that the roads under government control and operation show for the past year a deficit of $47,000,000. And that

is the loss on operation only; so far as I understand no allowance is made for depreciation of rolling stock and plant. I think that if to that 847,000,000 loss we add a fair amount for depreciation and wear and tear of rolling stock, and on top of that again add a fair rate of interest on the capital invested, we shall find the deficit is probably nearly twice $47,000,000. Therefore I think it is well to advise the Government to adopt some honest method of book-keeping so that the country may be informed of the actual deficit which will have to be provided for out of the public funds. When discussing the Grand Trunk Bill last year we were told by the minister and by other members of the Government that one of the reasons for taking over the Grand Trunk system was to secure the advantage of its Portland terminals. We were also told that the National Railway system was going to be placed in the hands of a commission entirely independent of all governmental interference. Some ten days ago we were discussing how export freight originating on the Grand Trunk and the Government Railway system would be routed, and the Minister of Railways said that he was going to see to it that all such freight would be routed by Canadian ports -Montreal, Quebec, St. John, and Halifax. Those two statements are contradictory and require explanation. If he intends to route export traffic by Canadian ports I want to know, why is it so necessary to acquire the Grand Trunk railway especially to .secure the advantage of its Portland terminals? That was held out as one of the reasons why we must absorb the Grand Trunk and round out our National Railway system. Then I want to know, by what authority does the Minister of Railways tell the people of this country that he is going to see to it that all traffic will be routed in a particular way? If I understood his statement a year ago, he was to have nothing to say about the management of our National Railway system-but it was to be under the supreme control of a commission entirely dependent of political interference.
I do not wish to take up any more time. I merely desire to impress upon the Government-and I do not speak from any disposition to be unduly critical-that the question of how to fix rates ought to be so simple that there should not be any hesitation in dealing with it.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: 

Mr. CO-PP: Was the deficit under government operation in the United States greater than under private operation?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I take it that it was; I cannot give my hon. friend the figures as to private operation. As all hon. members know, during the war the United States Government administered all the railroads of that country, and owing to the most remarkable McAdoo award, wages were increased enormously,, and the same rate of increase was applied in Canada. I shall not reiterate what I said last night about these roads that have fallen into the hands of the Government. I quite see how hon. gentlemen may criticise, and probably they criticise with justice. But as was stated so frequently in this House during the last two sessions, the question is, what alternative would you suggest? The operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific ceased; they threw up their hands. The Canadian Northern was at the end of its tether, and the Government had either to take it over or continue to pay out tens of millions by way of subsidies to keep it in operation. So with the Transcontinental. In my judgment it would be in the interests of the 10 p.m. country to abandon that road for ten or twenty years, because if you are going to charge higher freight rates to make up enormous deficits on capital, the road will not begin to pay running expenses. Where, then, are we going to get to? Then the old Grand Trunk came to the end of its tether, and the Government, which, after all, represents the people, was obliged to take it over. No hon. member has not been able to suggest any alternative to That-course during the last two or three sessions. So we have an enormous system, not voluntarily owned by the people,, but forced upon the people.


Lucien Cannon: Why not let the Canadian Pacific take the Grand Trunk?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, that might be; I do not knowr that the Canadian Pacific wants the Grand Trunk. But we have to look at -this thing on its merits-or demerits. Unless a decent alternative can be offered which will appeal to the common sense of members and to those who have the interests of the country at heart, why denounce such public ownership as we have? There is no alternative; there is nothing else to do. We have to carry the load; but -let us not place a vast additional burden upon the country in the way of high freight rates three-quarters of w'hich would be
fMr. Richardson. 1
placed upon us for the benefit of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which does not- need increased rates. I do not want to be understood as being opposed to the Canadian Pacific railway. I have watched that railway develop from its infancy, I was in the Press Gallery when the charter was granted thirty-five years ago-and I pay tribute to its splendid management and to the ability of the men who have been in charge of it. We, the people of this country, have this problem to wrestle with. There is no alternative; so let us make the best of a bad bargain, let us do the best we can w'ith our nationally-owned system.


Mr. LEGER:: Is it the intention of the Government to increase freight rates in order to meet the deficit on operation, which appears to be very large?


John Dowsley Reid: I explained last night the position so far as that is concerned. The question of railway rates is entirely in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners, from whose decision there is a right of appeal to the Governor in Council. In the case of appeal to the Governor in Council, his decision shalll be final. There would be only one way to prevent the railways from getting an increase and that would be to pass a Bill establishing the present rates as maximum rates. The management claim that the rates should be increased and unless the Government should urge them not to take part in these proceedings, they will doubtless continue to urge an increase. The hon. member can, therefore, see our position in the matter.


Auguste Théophile Léger: We are not certain, then, whether there will be an increase or not. I wish to put myself on record as strongly opposed to an increase of freight rates on the Government railways. I do not know what the merchant or dealer in other parts of Canada does, but in my part of the country when freight rates are increased, the consumer, the poor man generally, pays the difference. I am speaking not of the rich man, but of the poor man generally. Whenever an increase of fifty cents is made in the rate on a barrel of flour, the poor man has to pay that fifty cents, because the merchant does not lose a cent, he simply imposes the tax on his goods. That is the reason why I am strongly against the increase. I might refer to the matter of income taxes, although that is a subject not quite in order in this discussion, and state that merchants throughout the country, men worth probably half a million or

more, are being taxed heavily. Do these merchants pay the tax? Yes, but they impose the tax on their goods, and I and other poor men like me have to pay it. In that way, the whole burden from beginning to end has to be borne by the consumer. We should not impose any further burden on them, and I would ask the Government to curtail the expenses of the railways in order that the revenue may cover the expenses; otherwise I think it would be better to throw the railways away or to give them to somebody else.


Air. EULER:: I have no desire to prolong the debate in committee unduly, nor have I any particular desire to sound a discordant note in the remarks that have been made from this side of the House. At the same time, the criticism of nationalization of railways which has been made from this side and the lack of support from the other side of that principle have been to me somewhat of a disappointment. Last year, when the Government was led by the then Acting Prime Minister, who was also Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), we had a pronouncement that the Government had now become the champion of public ownership, and members on the opposite side supported the Acting Prime Minister in that statement, I am surprised and, as I say, disappointed, to find that there is nothing of that kind in the discussion that is now taking place. At that time I expressed myself as being in favour of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk, and I have not changed my opinion. I still believe that the Grand Trunk ought to become part of the National Railway system. I fear this -and I said so last year-that we are going to pay probably $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 more for the Grand Trunk than we ought to pay, and I was of the opinion then, and I am still, that this House should finally pass upon the award which the arbitrators will make.
Last year, the then Acting Prime Minister stated that a former Government had left, in his homely language, two dirty babies on the Government's doorstep, which were a heritage from a former Government. I am not going into the merits or demerits of that, but I will say that the Acting Prime Minister of last year himself deposited s'till another dirty baby on the doorstep of this country -the Grand Trunk railway. I suppose, therefore, we may say that we now have triplets: The Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. For 96J
my part, I believe that the three belong together, and I believe that those who now quite honestly and sincerely oppose the acquisition of the Grand Trunk are, in effect, denying to that last baby the right and privilege of being properly cleaned up and brought up as a decent member of society. Indeed I hope and believe that in the end these babies may grow strong enough to assist in supporting the rest of the family. I believe that the railways of this country will in time be one of its greatest assets, and they will discharge a real service. We sometimes lose sight of the objects of public ownership. The primary object of public ownership is service to the people at cost or at as nearly cost as possible.
What I rose to speak chiefly about was this: That it is an entirely unfair statement to make that public ownership if a failure because of the fact that during the last year the government-owned railways showed a deficit of $47,000,000. I admit that a loss of $47,000,000 on the Government railways ought to be disquieting to every member of this House and is disquieting to the people o_f this country. It is not any more so, to my mind, than the fact that this country has to-day a gross debt of more than $3,000,000,000 and a net debt of a good deal more than $2,000,000,000. That great debt, like the-deficits in railway operations, is the result to some extent of things over which we have no control, and to some extent also of extravagance and mismanagement on the part of the Government with regard to the debt and, perhaps, on the part of those who control and manage these railways as regards those railways. But surely those members -and I include those on this side of the House-who have taken as proof of the failure of public ownership of railways this fact of a deficit of $47,000,000, do not think that is a fair statetment; they surely would not say that if those railways had remained under private ownership, they would have shown anything but a deficit. In 1918, if my memory serves me correctly, the Canadian Northern railway showed a loss of something like $14,000,000, and we know that because of circumstances, such as increases in the wage bill of the railway and other reasons, those losses have been increasing from year to year. I think it is even a fact that the earnings of the Canadian Pacific last year were somewhat less than they were the year before.
Nationalization, or public ownership of railways may be right or it may be wrong, but I want to make this point, that the

loss of $47,000,000 last year by the National railways is to itself not a proof of the failure of public ownership, because we would have had that loss anyway. We must recognize the fact that had the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific continued under private ownership, the losses would have resulted and the Government of Canada would have had to foot the bill just the same. We hear the Canadian Pacific quoted continually as a proof of the superiority of private ownership and operation of railways. What makes the- Canadian Pacific successful? Two things: They have an all-round railway fully equipped all along the line, and then they have good management, the first of course, being the result of the latter. If you have the same-thing with the National railways, you may expect a similar result. You must, therefore, organize the National roads into one complete road, and that is my reason for supporting the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway, because I contend that it is absolutely impossible to make the roads which we now own and control a financial success without the acquisition of the Grand Trunk. The latter supplies the necessary branches and terminals in Eastern Canada, which the National railways do not possess now.
Then there is the other consideration, that you must have good management. Last year I asked the Minister of Railways Whether it was his intention to change the management of the road. It is no particular pleasure to me, nor perhaps to other members of the committee, constantly ' to harp on and criticize the management of the National railways, but I do not believe that the people of this country have complete faith in the management, and I think that the Government should take some note of that state of the public mind. The minister at that time assured the House that an entire re-organization of the management of the National roads would be undertaken. So far as I know, nothing in that direction has yet been done. Perhaps the minister is postponing the re-organization until the Grand Trunk has been actually taken over by the Government, but unless this entire reorganization takes place I am sure that the cause of public ownership will receive a setback from which it is not likely to recover for a great many years.
Just a word on the question of rates. The Minister of Railways stated the other day that in order to make up the deficit we must either increase the rates or dip into the
fMr. Euler.]
public treasury. In discussing these alternatives he made the statement that one great objection to increasing the rates was the fact that it would put some $51),000,000 more into the coffers of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He seemed to think that was a fatal objection. I wonder if it has ever occurred to this public-ownership government that here is a ready remedy. It may be considered rank heresy for me to suggest this: If the Government took over the Canadian Pacific as well, a road that is a paying institution, they would not have to increase the rates so very much. The Canadian Pacific last year made $22,000,000 of profits, so we would not have to increase the rates so very much. We would not require an additional $50,000,000. If the Government took over the Canadian Pacific, a very slight increase in rates would probably put the system on a basis where it could pay expenses.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. member
suggest that we should expropriate the Canadian Pacific and give them nothing for their property?


William Daum Euler: I make no such suggestion. I do not believe in robbing anybody. If we took over the Canadian Pacific, I would expect the shareholders to be paid what the property was worth. What I am speaking of is profits.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The taking over of the Canadian Pacific has been suggested by The Globe.
r	.	*


William Daum Euler: I realize that it is an impracticable suggestion at the present time, because our commitments are very heavy, but the time will come when this country will own not only the" railways we now have and the Grand Trunk, but also the Canadian Pacific unless through wrong policies and bad management the cause of public ownership is so bedevilled as not to give the system a chance. So far as rates are concerned, I am thoroughly of opinion that the rates ought to be such that the raods will carry themselves. I do not think it is fair that some of the people of this country should be asked to pay for the railway service that is being given to other people in this country. Public ownership means service at cost, but it does not mean service at less than cost, and I want to put myself on record on this question of rates, that the only proper thing to do is to make the rates such that the neople who receive the service will pay for it.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Does my hon. friend mean that the Government should go on and in-

crease the rates and spend money even to the point of extravagance?


William Daum Euler: Extravagance is the very
thing I have been condemning. My whole point is this:	The man who is receiving
service, ought to pay for that service. Let every tub stand on its own bottom.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister no doubt has the statement of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the fiscal year 1919?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not that.


Frank S. Cahill: I would ask the minister to think again. He must have in his department the statement of the Grand Trunk for the fiscal year 1919. It is now April 21, 1920, and I should like the minister to tell me from that statement how much less the operating earnings were in 1919 than in 1918.


John Dowsley Reid: My deputy minister tells me that we have not yet got the official statement of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the year ending December 31, 1919. By Act of Parliament the fiscal year for all the rai'way companies now ends on December 31 instead of June 30, as formerly. I will make further inquiries in the morning, and if it should be that the statement has come to hand I will send the hon. member the information.


Frank S. Cahill: What does the minister
mean by saying that the Grand Trunk have changed their fiscal year? I am talking about the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and I have in my hand a statement of that company for the year ending December 31, 1919. They have not changed their fiscal year. The minister has the information in his department, and I am asking if he will give it to the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend will remember that an Act of Parliament was passed making the fiscal year for all the railways, not simply the Grand Trunk, end on December 3, instead of June 30.


Frank S. Cahill: I want no more quibbling. I want the minister to give me a straight answer to my question. The Grand Trunk year has not been changed. It ended on the 31st of December in 1918, and it ended on the 31st of December in 1919. I am asking whether the minister has in his department the statement of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1919, and how the earnings for that year compare with the earnings for 1918.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not quibbling at all. I quite understand the hon. gentleman's question, but my deputy minister tells me that we have not got the Grand Trunk official statement for the year 1919.
I think that is a fair answer. I was right in saying that the fiscal year of the railway companies ended on June 30, until the date was changed by Act of Parliament, to December 31. The report the hon. gentleman has referred to was a report the railway company got out of its own; it was not the official statement that was sent to the department. The hon. gentleman asked for a statement for the year ending December 31, and, I repeat, my deputy tells me that we have not that statement in the department as far as he can remember this evening. But if it is in the department I shall see that it is sent to my hon. friend before noon tomorrow.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister say that he has no knowledge of a Grand Trunk statement for the year 1919 and that he does not know what the increased deficit is on the Grand Trunk as compared with the year 1918?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I can make that any plainer. I have not seen any such statement for 1919 and therefore I am not in a position to give the House that information. I was not operating the Grand Trunk and, of course, would not have that information.


Frank S. Cahill: No, but you are proposing to buy it.


John Dowsley Reid: The arbitrators will decide that.


Frank S. Cahill: The arbitrators will have nothing to do with the annual statement of the Grand Trunk. The minister must have taken some slight notice of what was being done on the Grand Trunk during the past year. He does not know anything about what the operations were in 1919 as compared with 1918 and 1917. When he is asked by my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Air. AlcKenzie) to-night what amount of money was spent on the road, he says that he does not think that the department has that information. Any one can go to the library and get that information for 1915-16. The department has that information and it should be [DOT]willing to give it to this committee. I do not think there is any necessity for passing this legislation, it does not amount to anything, and the Government has not given us an explanation of why it brought the Bill in. But if the Government is determined to go ahead and conclude the bargain, it means nothing

at all. It has no information to give the House and no reason it is asking for the ratification of the agreement. The minister has no more information than he had a year ago, and the information (which he had then did not amount to anything. I think the minister ought to be able to tell us the earnings of the Grand Trunk for 1919. That information is in the department, and the committee is entitled to it. If he refuses to give the information we cannot do anything about it, but I will tell him this, that (when he comes to pass his Estimates he will have to furnish us with more information than he has given on this Bill if he has any expectation of getting them through.


William Stevens Fielding: 
John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: And that if that is so it would be necessary for the minister, if he wanted to lend them any money, to come to Parliament for authority.


John Dowsley Reid: That is it.


William Stevens Fielding: Is that the reading of it?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not prepared to say that is wrong, but I think that quite a good argument could be put up on the other side. The House will note the language of that section of the agreement:
The Managing Committee may, with the consent of the Governor in Council-
Not with the consent of Parliament, but with the consent of the Governor in Council-
-borrow from the Government on Grand Trunk notes, or other obligations or securities approved of by the Governor in Council for the carrying on of the operation or improvement of the Grand Trunk system.
It might be contended with some fairness or force that when that clause is put into the agreement it contemplates borrowing and lending and that when the Government gives its sanction to that clause as a part of the agreement it clearly contemplates, by implication at all events, authority to lend. If there is any room for doubt at all it ought to be absolutely cleared up, and I was going to suggest, if the Minister of Justice had been in his place, that the addition of the following proviso would put it beyond question:
Nothing herein contained shall be constructed to permit any lending of money by the Government to the Managing Committee, mentioned in the fourth section of the said Agreement, without the specific authority of Parliament.
The minister may say that is what it means anyway, and if it is found ultimately to bear that meaning I shall be content with having put this view before the House.
I think I could argue with a good deal of force that if we accepted that .clause and put it in the agreement and it was ratified by Parliament it would contemplate not only the borrowing power but the lending

power. However, I do not want to repeat the argument, the Minister of Justice can read it in Hansard and if there is anything in it it can be dealt with at a later date.


William Daum Euler: What progress has been made in the direction of implementing the promise made last year in regard to the reorganization of the management of the National railways?


John Dowsley Reid: I think I stated last year that as soon as we had taken over the Grand Trunk it would be necessary to reorganize the- management and put the two systems together. As soon as the Bill has passed we will appoint a committee under the Act to first go into the question of trying to economize by operating the two roads together as far as possible and until the arbitration has been concluded. The question of reorganization will be taken up at as early a date as possible after we get through with the arbitration.


Jacques Bureau: .Does that include the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk Pacific?


John Dowsley Reid: The whole lot.


Lucien Cannon: The minister mentioned, in his answer to the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), that the statement filed by the company in his department is a statement for the period up to the last day of June, 1919.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, up to 1919. The statement that the hon. member for Pontiac referred to was the report that is submitted by the directors to their shareholders at their annual meeting. That is a different report from that which is sent to the Department of Railways and Canals.


Lucien Cannon: Has the department now any document showing the assets and liabilities and the actual standing of the Grand Trunk up to the last day of June, 1919?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Lucien Cannon: From June up to date they have nothing? There is that report up to the last day of June, 1919.
Mr. J. D. RiEID: These reports are the regular official reports that must be sent to the Railway Department by every railway. They contain merely statistics in connection with the operation of the road and not the assets and the liabilities, such as the Lon. member states.


Lucien Cannon: Statistics in connection with the operation of the road?


John Dowsley Reid: -And bonds.


Lucien Cannon: What conclusions are shown in the report? Is there a deficit in the running of the road, if so, what is the amount of that deficit?
Mr. J. D. RiEID: I said a few minutes ago that we had not received a report up to December.


Lucien Cannon: No, no, up to June.


John Dowsley Reid: My deputy tells me that the last official report of the statistics the company are required to furnish to the Department of Railways that has been received was up to December 31, 1918, and that has been published. We have not yet got the statistics up to December 31, 1919.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand the minister to say that although this Government contemplates purchasing the Grand Trunk and comes down to the House with a Bill which it requests members to rush through, he has absolutely no idea of the nature of the operations of the railway since December 31, 1918? In that case nearly eighteen months have elapsed without the minister knowing what the company has done, or what the results of the operations of the railroad were. Not only are we going to buy this railroad, but the minister is not an unwilling purchaser; he is running after the railroad and asking us to join in the chase.
An hon. MEMBER. Sixty miles an hour.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think that the position taken by the minister is reasonable. As a business proposition, if 1 contemplated buying a going concern, before doing so or before asking the bank to lend me the money to make the purchase, I should demand a statement of its operations. Suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the Grand Trunk Company has been extravagant for the last eighteen months, and that the indebtedness or the deficits of the company have increased considerably, this country does not know anything about it. The minister himself has no information, and his deputy minister is in absolute darkness and ignorance with respect to the facts. I think, Mr. Chairman, in just'ce to himself the minister should not ask us to give favourable consideration to the clause under review before we have this information-information that would be re-
15U6

quested by any business man or any business institution.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend from Pont:ae (Mr. Cahill) in discussing this matter a few moments ago ashed the minister a question in regard to the operations, of the Grand Trunk Company for the year ending December, 1919. The minister stated that he had not received such a report from the railway company, but I think he said he had received a report down to the 31st December, 1918. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) made the statement that the minister had the information for 1919 in his department, and he must have some reason for making that statement. What that reason is I am not prepared to say, and if the minister declares he has not got the information I suppose we must accept his statement. Is there any possibility that the minister is mistaken in regard to the facts because it does seem to me we should have that information before this committee? It is highly important, if we are to compare the operations of the railway for 1919 with those of 1918, that we should at least have some information on the subject, because it would mean very much to the committee and to the country. The minister stated that if he had such information he would send it to the hon. member for Pontiac. If there is such information in the department he should not only send it to the hon. member in question but should lay it upon the table of the House, so that not only the committee but the country may know the nature of the operations of the railway that we are taking over.


John Dowsley Reid: Might I just interrupt my hon. friend? I am very sorry that he will not take my word, but I say again, and I must assume the responsibility for such a statement, that such a report is not in the department. I have that statement from my deputy minister. Surely therefore it is unfair for the hon. member to argue upon the basis that I have such a report. I did say that if there was such a report in the department I would produce it, but I again repeat that there is not. That is the position we are in.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I trust the minister will not accuse me of attempting to argue from a wrong standpoint. I have no desire to insinuate in the least degree that he has the report in question; we have simply the word of my hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) in regard to the matter. I do say this, however; The hon. gentleman on his responsibility stated that the information was in the department.

Now he may not know that it was in the department, but he must have the information that such a report has been prepared. If that report was prepared by the officials of the Grand Trunk it ought to be in the hands of the minister and he should submit it to this committee when he is asking for the passage of such an important Bill as this. If we had that report before us. and could compare the operations of the railway for the year 1919 with the operations of the year 1918, and see whether the comparison was a favourable or unfavourable one, it might have a very great deal of weight on the minds of hon. gentlemen as to whether it would be a proper thing to take over this road at the present time. The minister apparently comes to the conclusion that this is a trifling matter with which neither members of the House nor the people are concerned. I say to him that we on this side are eager and anxious, in the event of it being decided to carry out this arrangement that we should make a good bargain. If my hon. friend who spoke a few moments ago is correct in his statement that the operations of the Grand Trunk railway show that its acquisition would be beneficial to this country, that is all very well; but I do say that when we are considering a matter of such vast importance we are not exceeding our duties when we insist that my hon. friend who has charge of this Bill should bring whatever information is available before the House. Not only should private members have that information as a matter of courtesy from the minister, but the people of Canada should be given it as well so that they may understand that true condition of affairs and not find in acquiring this railway they were, to use a homely expression, " buying a pig in a poke ". Whatever information is required I insist, Mr. Chairman, should not have been drawn out of the minister, but should be given willingly, frankly and generously to this committe so that the matters as they come before us may be considered on the merits.
Mr. D. D. M'cKENZIE:	I sat in this
House with the hon. Minister of Railways when I was supporting the Government of the day and he was a member of the Opposition-


Jacques Bureau: And a bad one at that!


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -and I wrell remember the hon. gentleman's aggressiveness.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He was only standing on
his rights when he demanded those things.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I ask him, if he were sitting in opposition to-day and the Minister of Railways were refusing to give-him information, what would happen to that minister?


Jacques Bureau: He would have a chill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that the Railway Department is playing unfairly with this Parliament and this committee. When we passed the Grand Trunk Acquisition Act last fall it was well understood that a board of arbitration was to be appointed to ascertain the value of this road. I am sure that the Minister of Justice and every business man in the House will agree with me that the Department of Railways should at once have set to work preparing the Government's case. But here we are on the 21st of April, and although it is said the arbitrators are about to be appointed, that department is not in possession of one scintilla of information in regard to the whole business.
The Government may treat us lightly on this side of the House, but I would ask hon. gentlemen who have to account to their constituents for their attitude on this very large question how they feel at the prospect of being called upon to ratify an agreement concerning which the Minister of Railways himself knows nothing at all, but which he asks them to vote for with their eyes shut. I cannot understand any minister, particularly an experienced minister like the Minister of Railways, knowing at least for the past month or two that he had to come before Parliament to ask for the ratification of this agreement, sitting down contentedly without giving any thought to securing the slightest information for the use of this House. The hon. minister will not say that he asked the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for their financial statement of last year and that they refused to furnish it to him. I venture to say that he has not asked for a single statement, but has simply taken the position that nothing was sent to his office. It was the duty of the minister to secure all the information he possibly could in order to be in a position to satisfy the House. But it looks as if he had made up his mind that no matter how barren he was of information, it was a foregone conclusion that hon. gentlemen supporting the Government would vote to pass this Bill. No clearer evidence of this attitude could be found than the position he finds himself in to-night.
At the opening of the discussion while the Speaker was in the Chair, and before the motion for second reading was passed, I made some statements in regard to the powers which I thought we had in respect to this agreement. Now that the Minister of Justice is in his plaice I feel more comfortable in making some observations in regard to the attitude we should take on this ratification. I wish particularly to call his attention to the fifteenth article of the agreement itself, where the limitations of this Parliament are acknowledged. It reads as follows:
Upon the preference and common stock being vested in the Government, or its nominees the Grand Trunk shall cause its board of directors and the board of directors of each company comprised in the Grand Tunk system, to resign or vacate their offices, as directors, at such time or times and in such manner as may be requested by the Government, and nominees of the Government shall be duly appointed to the vacancies caused thereby. Should any director of the Grand Trunk, or of any company comprised in the Grand Trunk system, which is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, neglect -to resign or vacate his office in accordance with such request, the Governor in Council may declare the office of any such director to be vacant, on and after a date to be named in such order, and may appoint a director in his stead.
Two points in this article should be noticed. One is the provision for political appointees to every position that will be rendered vacant by the decree of the Government. We were told repeatedly that this road, as well as any other road controlled by the Government, was to be absolutely non-political in its management, but here we find that on a certain date every manager, official, and director of the Grand Trunk shall resign and their positions shall be filled by nominees of the Government. If I understand anything at all, it is that political friends entitled to consideration at the hands of the Government will be appointed to those positions, in utter disregard of the independent board of management which we were promised.
When I spoke on this point before I contended that we had no authority to deal with any matter beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Parliament, and I think that is recognized by this article fifteen, which says that we shall deal with such and such matters as far as they are within the legislative authority of this Parliament. If that passage does not mean that we have no authority over certain things in connection with this business, then I cannot understand the true sense of those words. I start out then by saying that our limitations as a parliament are recognized by that para-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I right in understanding that no useful purpose will be served by any one on this side of the House suggesting an amendment to the

agreement inasmuch as the Government takes the position that the agreement between iltself and the Grand Trunk Railway-Company is signed) I ask this question because if there is a possibility of amending the agreement, we should like to discuss it further and have one or two amendments made. But if the Government is determined that it will not allow any amendment to the agreement whatever, I do not see that any useful purpose can be served by keeping up the discussion in committee. The attitude of the Government constitutes a reason for voting against the ratification of the agreement, but it is also a reason for discontinuing the discussion.


John Dowsley Reid: We could not now alter the agreement that has been signed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I do not see that any useful purpose can be served in keeping up (the discussion, but I certainly feel that the minister has just given us a reason why we should not vote to ratify the agreement.
Seation 2 and schedule agreed to on division.
Bill reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid for the journed at 11.15 p.m.
Thursday, April 22, 1920.